Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Just 19% think the Chancellor’s changes will make them better off – politicalbetting.com

14567810»

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Phil said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT
    Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.

    Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.

    Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

    Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
    “The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”

    Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
    Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
    Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
    Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.

    If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.

    You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
    You started off by asking why the NHS is cutting services whilst the budget is increasing.

    You got the correct answer in the first response. People are living longer with more things wrong with them. So demand is up and the budget isn't increasing fast enough to match that increase.

    We also have a raft of new expensive technologies and people expect more nowadays.
    Which is why we need life time budgets and you can insure against exceeding it
    Sorry I don't really know what that means in practice.
    Simple you get treatment upto a lifetime budget of say 150k anything over that you pay or your insurance has to pay
    That's a stupidly mental idea, sorry.
    perhaps you would care to state why? The elderly are inflating the nhs budget by living too long. Why should they not pay for it? Is that not the common left wing complaint that the elderly are robbing the young and yet you suggest a sensible compromise and its all "oh but not that"
    Ok. Well for a starters.. how would you start your policy? Who would start paying for the 'insurance' - 50 year olds, 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds etc.? Does someone go back in time and tot up all they have used so far? What happens if they can't afford the insurance?

    How about: No health care for the over 80s?

    You've had your life, you've had your chances, here's a ton of excellent opiates, bye

    I'm quite serious. That would be my health policy

    I'd start it at 60 if you are clinically obese. Time to wise up, you fat slobs
    There is a certain plausibility / ethical basis to that argument. It's called the fair innings argument. Google it. Alan Williams.

    Certainly makes more sense than the mad £150K + insurance idea.

    But I just think it might be difficult saying fuck off in practice to all the oldies. But maybe the NHS could employ you to do it with a loud speaker, touring the hospital wards up and down the country?
    Just this week we had a funeral of a 96 year old woman. Should she have had a head shot in 2006?
    No, the point being made is that medical intervention to extend someone's life indefinitely is unsustainable. An age should be chosen where the NHS stops providing life extending care and people are allowed to die of old age or natural causes.
    So the rich can pay to live longer than the poor?
    As with everything else in life.
    That doesn’t mean anything.
    The rich will always pay for better services. They already do, for example my current health issues have been almost exclusively treated in the private sector. The consultant is a family friend and she said that for what I've got the NHS wait time is over a year to get treatment. So I'll pose the question again, how is it different from today?
    Denying health care to the elderly just because they’re poor is different to today. You’ve been watching too much Logan’s Run.

    You have to wonder whether some on the right actually like people. We’re just economic units and costs.
    You want the impossible, in that case. A well funded state that provides for 30+ years of healthcare and retirement for the whole population. Where do we find the money for it? To fully fund the NHS we're not talking a few billion, it's probably more like £70-80bn overnight and then 7-10% annual spending increases on healthcare plus 5-7% increase in pension spending per year. Who pays for it, what rate of tax, how much do we squeeze other areas of spending like education, infrastructure and housing?

    You're handing the state an unlimited level of healthcare liability but proposing absolutely no way of funding it except suggesting that limiting the liability is unacceptable.

    The UK needs to have this discussion because we have primarily state provision in healthcare for an ageing and unhealthy population. Carping from the sidelines and suggestions that those people who realise what you want is impossible are mental is why we're fucked and the country is heading for a slow decline as we struggle to keep the NHS working, old people's pensions paid and everything else that governments need to spend money on.
    Back in 1920s PB MaxPB thought it impossible and inappropriate to provide healthcare to the over 50s and provide universal secondary education.

    Let’s have some ambition. We can do this.
    You've failed to answer the question. The UK won't turn into Argentina, it's turning into Japan, a childless society in permanent decline because living costs are too high to support families and population growth.
    The question is stupid and utterly self defeating. It has been answered repeatedly. If you had your way we would have not made progress and settled for some arbitrary so called ‘natural’ limit years ago.
    Still no answers then. And those bygone eras are not comparable to today. That was an age where people were getting healthier and basic nutrition provided a huge boost to people's health and longevity. We're now at the other end of the scale where people's lifestyles are now a burden, especially in older age.

    Until recently there was never a time where a person with dementia would be kept alive and have their life lengthened for an unlimited period of time. That's what we're doing, keeping shells of people alive, for what no one really knows but they exist and cost the state billions that could be better spent on cancer care, stroke rehabilitation and plenty of other healthcare needs.

    We've arbitrarily decided that life quality doesn't matter if the patient is unable to say so and even in some cases where they have said so they are unable to be assisted in dying.
    That is not correct. We do not keep people alive when they have no quality of life. Sensitive discussion is needed with patients and relatives in order to set a treatment plan, and that may well be palliative care. I speak not just professionally, but also from personal experience. My mother in law died a year ago, with an explicit care plan to nurse her to a comfortable death after a major stroke on a background of moderate dementia.
    With all respect, that is not my experience at all

    Many friends and family report years of distressing dementia in old and close relatives
    Neither dementia nor distress are inevitable. Dying with a clear mind and after a lifetime of good health at the age of 96 is perfectly possible, indeed not even unusual for people who look after themselves.

    Big element of chance, presumably. My 97 year old grandmother is sharp as a tack, but spent her whole 80s looking after my late grandfather as he descended into Alzheimers. Neither drank much or smoked at all or were fat.
    To play Devil's (Leon's) advocate, look at the difference in LE between rich and poor parts of Glasgow.

    If you have a catastrophic heart attack age 60 after contributing to Scottish industry for 45 years, seems a shit deal compared with a Uni educated lawyer (35 years "service", retired early) who has their dementia care paid for by the NHS for 15 years.
    Having your dementia care paid for is not the greatest treat, though. It is quite wrong to think that demented feels like pleasantly drunk, it comes with big helpings of paranoia and anger and misery.
    Once again, not inevitable. My mother in law had good quality of life despite her dementia, at least until her stroke.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,109
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    How do you stop it? Mortgage interest relief has been removed from property income but if you set it up as a property 'business' then I assume standard rules apply.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    The biggest change in the last thirty years is not the fall in owners and rise in renters, though that is significant: it is the related rise in outright-owners and fall in mortgage-carrying-owners. High interest rates will be brutal for a small concentrated part of society - mainly those in their 30s and 40s. Probably not good for fertility rates.

    More than half of homeowners now don’t have a mortgage, a record high.

    You cannot solve a housing crisis when the population of the country is rising so fast. No matter how fast you build homes it won't be enough. In the 70s and 80s the population was almost flat which meant it was easy to build enough homes.
    I'm not sure that's true: it is not impossible, just difficult.

    Look at the pace of building in some of the Sunbelt cities in the US, places like Phoenix and Las Vegas: these are places that have managed to quadruple in size in a couple of decades.
    Give me the job.

    I can get 300,000 house built a year.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,147
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    Bringing back MIRAS would - effectively - subsidize the young and those at the start of their careers over the old, whose mortgages are mostly paid off.
    No need to bring back MIRAS, maybe just end basic rate relief for landlords plus some kind of value surcharge from which owner occupiers are exempt.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    edited September 23
    Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506

    20 point lead absolutely nailed on now. This budget has been very poorly received and has probably lost the Red Wall for good

    I don’t reckon the voting well off are going to be too impressed either.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    Bringing back MIRAS would - effectively - subsidize the young and those at the start of their careers over the old, whose mortgages are mostly paid off.
    What we are terrible in this country is working out what we want and then working backwards from there to work out what steps need to be taken.

    Is the goal here that people should own their home or that people should live in a place that is well maintained, where they are not exploited and in which they feel proud? The two are not necessarily the same.

    There is also the question of whether we should be developing policies that seem to care more about the concerns of a certain, well-educated, urban part of the population than the welfare of all.
  • The much maligned Barty did in fact recommend increased euthanasia as part of his fiscal prescription the other day.

    Mind you, he’s more bat-shit than a transylvanian belfry.

    I "like" this NOT as a kick against Barty (or is it Batty?)

    Instead, because it made me snort my soda!
  • Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506
    In times of prosperity the well off react negatively to people coming after them with high taxation. But to give them significant tax cuts where there’s an undeniable cost of living crisis…. I think not.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    I'm not sure that's the most important dynamic that has distorted things.

    If landlords judge the investment purely based on rental income then there isn't a problem. What changes things is when they they invest based on the assumption of capital gains, which has been well-founded as the government has launched endless schemes since 2007 to make sure prices always go up.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    edited September 23
    Chris Philp, Chief Sec to the Treasury tweeted this morning,

    “Great to see sterling strengthening on the back of the new UK Growth Plan.”

    Have to respect him for not deleting it, tbh.
  • kle4 said:

    There have been some diabolical assessments of the Ukraine conflict but this has to go down as one of the worst ones:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/holding-ground-losing-war/

    The sudden mention of the Russian mobilisation in the middle of that stands out like a sore thumb, since based on what the Kremlin is claiming about how many it has killed, and how few men it has lost, there would appear to be no need whatsoever for more forces.

    It also offers no answer for why if the the Russians are 'nothing if not methodical and deliberate' it engaged in rapid assaults on a wider area it has now, to some degree at least, had to withdraw from.

    But that's the least of it frankly. I'm not one to simply believe optimistic Ukrainian claims at face value, but that is really something else as far as eating out of Moscow's hand.

    Relatedly

    In response to the Russian MoD's briefing that stated the 89th Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft was shot down, a Russian Telegram channel sarcastically says that Ukraine must have a secret underground repair facility since Ukraine reportedly had fewer than 50 when the war began.


    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1573317714420064256?cxt=HHwWgICz7YOIxtUrAAAA
    There are a lot of 'experts' who are desperately trying to salvage their reputation (and careers) by grasping onto whatever straw they can to suggest Russia will win. One side effect of the conflict will be decreased services for a certain class of policy expert.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
    Odeys performance is rubbish last few years. He certainly does good pr for himself though
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
    I don’t think Kwarteng is doing his bidding (at least not since he was paid to do so).

    I merely note the tight connections between libertarian nutters, Brexit, and predatory hedge funders.
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538
    PeterM said:

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
    Like Truss. The plot thickens.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,760
    Jonathan said:

    My father has advanced dementia. He lives in a home. He rarely speaks. Life is hard, but it is a life with moments of love and joy. And today he is weirdly better now than he was six months ago. I will pop over tomorrow and give him a hug, make him smile and sit with him in front of James Bond.

    There have been moments when of course you question it all, but I think I would take this over my mother’s somewhat early and abrupt death due to AML cancer.

    The closest I’ve seen to euthanasia is suicide. I’ve seen enough of that to know it’s not the way. We need to do more to save people from that.

    I'm sorry to hear that but it is good that you can still find something positive.

    I think it depends on the type of dementia - they aren't all the same. Some cases clearly involve paranoia and a lot of angry or disturbed behaviour.

    Your father's case sounds more like my uncle and also a near neighbour - they were both pretty amiable and not upset most of the time and they were happy to have company. Obviously still distressing, but not _quite_ as awful.

    It is clearly a poorly understood disease. There's probably a whole family of different subclasses with different causes and/or effects but in our case the NHS has not tried to find much out, probably because they treat it as a social care problem a lot of the time.

    More research needed...a shame it seems to have gone down an unproductive rabbit hole for years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Jonathan said:

    PeterM said:

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
    Like Truss. The plot thickens.
    They are both ultra dry Orange Book LDs ideologically
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    PeterM said:

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
    Like Truss. The plot thickens.
    They are both ultra dry Orange Book LDs ideologically
    Truss is the Leader of the Conservative Party.
    Own it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    I'm not sure that's the most important dynamic that has distorted things.

    If landlords judge the investment purely based on rental income then there isn't a problem. What changes things is when they they invest based on the assumption of capital gains, which has been well-founded as the government has launched endless schemes since 2007 to make sure prices always go up.
    The thing is, though, that for a long time being a landlord was an incredible financial proposition.

    You rented out a place with a 6-7% yield, while borrowing at 3%. Plus, your rental income grew with inflation (or even a little better) every year.

    Now, there was maintenance and voids, etc. But you still had positive carry of 2-3% *and* over time the gap between interest bill and rental income grew every year.

    And I really would recommend reading Lawson on this: his view was that Britain lacked enough rented accommodation, and that the economy would benefit from more. And that thesis was probably broadly correct - Britain probably could have done with more high quality rental properties. \
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    PeterM said:

    Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
    Odeys performance is rubbish last few years. He certainly does good pr for himself though
    FWIW, I think we can assume that Kwasi is his own man.

    On the other hand, I do know that Kwasi was part of a group that would go an speak to Odey team while he was a backbench MP. And while I have no idea whether he still is, I think it is highly likely that Crispin knows Kwasi's views.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    PeterM said:

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
    Like Truss. The plot thickens.
    They are both ultra dry Orange Book LDs ideologically
    Truss is the Leader of the Conservative Party.
    Own it.
    The Conservative right adopted and elected elected a remainer, republican, Lib Dem on a ‘journey’. They never really inquired where that journey was heading next.
  • Stolen from Twitter.


    This meme will never die.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    Bringing back MIRAS would - effectively - subsidize the young and those at the start of their careers over the old, whose mortgages are mostly paid off.
    No need to bring back MIRAS, maybe just end basic rate relief for landlords plus some kind of value surcharge from which owner occupiers are exempt.
    The current legislation on this is absurd: essentially large landlords (or anyone whose properties are owned by a corporate body) are still completely free to borrow and to offset interest expense against tax. (My accountant cheerfully told me that I could easily dodge the changes by contributing my property to an LLP, and then changing the LLP to a Limited Company, at which point I could freely borrow and offset interest income.)

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    I'm not sure that's the most important dynamic that has distorted things.

    If landlords judge the investment purely based on rental income then there isn't a problem. What changes things is when they they invest based on the assumption of capital gains, which has been well-founded as the government has launched endless schemes since 2007 to make sure prices always go up.
    The thing is, though, that for a long time being a landlord was an incredible financial proposition.

    You rented out a place with a 6-7% yield, while borrowing at 3%. Plus, your rental income grew with inflation (or even a little better) every year.

    Now, there was maintenance and voids, etc. But you still had positive carry of 2-3% *and* over time the gap between interest bill and rental income grew every year.

    And I really would recommend reading Lawson on this: his view was that Britain lacked enough rented accommodation, and that the economy would benefit from more. And that thesis was probably broadly correct - Britain probably could have done with more high quality rental properties. \
    The housing market in the mid 1990s wasn't bad at all for young people. Anecdotally I know several people who bought either new build starter homes or two-up, two-down terraces while in their 20s on below average incomes.

    Gordon Brown came into Number 11 promising to avoid stoking another housing bubble, and then contrived to inflate the biggest one we've ever seen.
  • rcs1000 said:

    PeterM said:

    Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
    Odeys performance is rubbish last few years. He certainly does good pr for himself though
    FWIW, I think we can assume that
    Kwasi is his own man.

    On the other hand, I do know that Kwasi was part of a group that would go an speak to Odey team while he was a backbench MP. And while I have no idea whether he still is, I think it is highly likely that Crispin knows Kwasi's views.
    I have a bit of inside knowledge on this one.

    Yes, Kwasi did speak with Odey as a backbench MP. He is friends with one of the salespeople at an investment bank who serviced Odey.

    It's certainly more accurate to say Odey knew Kwarteng's views and then made a rational decision based on that view than the idea KK is an Odey puppet.

    TBH, though, most of us on here should have been able to make the same bet, if only we had the capital. It was clear Truss would have to 'go massive' given both the CoL crisis and her own views. From that, it should have been clear the deficit would massively increase.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,742
    PeterM said:

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
    Was. A long long time ago.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, @MaxPB made an astute comment on the unwelcome rise of a rentier class, as landlords outbid owner occupiers for properties.

    My supposition is that this is the consequence of a tax system which (even today) allows landlords to offset interest expense against income, while owner occupiers cannot.

    And I think we need to blame Nigel Lawson for this one: he kicked off the abolition of MIRAS, and he introduced a number of other tax measures to encourage landlords. (He discusses this in The View From Number Eleven.)

    What is now clear is that he missed the consequence: a landlord can always outbid an occupier, and therefore an ever greater share of the housing stock will end up rented.

    I'm not sure that's the most important dynamic that has distorted things.

    If landlords judge the investment purely based on rental income then there isn't a problem. What changes things is when they they invest based on the assumption of capital gains, which has been well-founded as the government has launched endless schemes since 2007 to make sure prices always go up.
    The thing is, though, that for a long time being a landlord was an incredible financial proposition.

    You rented out a place with a 6-7% yield, while borrowing at 3%. Plus, your rental income grew with inflation (or even a little better) every year.

    Now, there was maintenance and voids, etc. But you still had positive carry of 2-3% *and* over time the gap between interest bill and rental income grew every year.

    And I really would recommend reading Lawson on this: his view was that Britain lacked enough rented accommodation, and that the economy would benefit from more. And that thesis was probably broadly correct - Britain probably could have done with more high quality rental properties. \
    The housing market in the mid 1990s wasn't bad at all for young people. Anecdotally I know several people who bought either new build starter homes or two-up, two-down terraces while in their 20s on below average incomes.

    Gordon Brown came into Number 11 promising to avoid stoking another housing bubble, and then contrived to inflate the biggest one we've ever seen.
    It was excellent in the mid-1990s, the consequence of house prices falling around 40% in real terms from their peak: adjusted for inflation they went from £175,000 in 1989 to £114,000 in 1995.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    rcs1000 said:

    PeterM said:

    Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
    Odeys performance is rubbish last few years. He certainly does good pr for himself though
    FWIW, I think we can assume that
    Kwasi is his own man.

    On the other hand, I do know that Kwasi was part of a group that would go an speak to Odey team while he was a backbench MP. And while I have no idea whether he still is, I think it is highly likely that Crispin knows Kwasi's views.
    I have a bit of inside knowledge on this one.

    Yes, Kwasi did speak with Odey as a backbench MP. He is friends with one of the salespeople at an investment bank who serviced Odey.

    It's certainly more accurate to say Odey knew Kwarteng's views and then made a rational decision based on that view than the idea KK is an Odey puppet.

    TBH, though, most of us on here should have been able to make the same bet, if only we had the capital. It was clear Truss would have to 'go massive' given both the CoL crisis and her own views. From that, it should have been clear the deficit would massively increase.

    I have inside knowledge on this one too :smile:
  • Jonathan said:

    PeterM said:

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
    Like Truss. The plot thickens.
    Christ, next you will be believing that Truss killed off Liz as part of a secret Lib Dem Republican plot
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Jonathan said:

    My father has advanced dementia. He lives in a home. He rarely speaks. Life is hard, but it is a life with moments of love and joy. And today he is weirdly better now than he was six months ago. I will pop over tomorrow and give him a hug, make him smile and sit with him in front of James Bond.

    There have been moments when of course you question it all, but I think I would take this over my mother’s somewhat early and abrupt death due to AML cancer.

    The closest I’ve seen to euthanasia is suicide. I’ve seen enough of that to know it’s not the way. We need to do more to save people from that.

    But suicide is what you get because euthanasia is unavailable. Sure it sucks because it is bloody difficult by means available to the amateur (one of my most prized possessions is several times the lethal dose of BP grade opiates), but that is an argument for not against euthanasia.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    PeterM said:

    Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
    Odeys performance is rubbish last few years. He certainly does good pr for himself though
    FWIW, I think we can assume that
    Kwasi is his own man.

    On the other hand, I do know that Kwasi was part of a group that would go an speak to Odey team while he was a backbench MP. And while I have no idea whether he still is, I think it is highly likely that Crispin knows Kwasi's views.
    I have a bit of inside knowledge on this one.

    Yes, Kwasi did speak with Odey as a backbench MP. He is friends with one of the
    salespeople at an investment bank who serviced Odey.

    It's certainly more accurate to say Odey knew Kwarteng's views and then made a rational decision based on that view than the idea KK is an Odey puppet.

    TBH, though, most of us on here should have been able to make the same bet, if only we had the capital. It was clear Truss would have to 'go massive' given both the CoL crisis and her own views. From that, it should have been clear the deficit would massively increase.

    I have inside knowledge on this one too :smile:
    And I think we have reached the same conclusion.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    PeterM said:

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    Mark littlewood head of iea is actually a libdem.
    Like Truss. The plot thickens.
    They are both ultra dry Orange Book LDs ideologically
    Truss is the Leader of the Conservative Party.
    Own it.
    I didn't vote for her. She is as I always said more of a classical liberal than a traditional Tory and probably our first genuinely libertarian PM. We will see at the next general election just how popular libertarianism really is in Britain
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506

    Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧
    @montie
    ·
    13h
    A massive moment for
    @iealondon
    . They’ve been advocating these policies for years. They incubated Truss and Kwarteng during their early years as MPs. Britain is now their laboratory.

    The 'joke' about the whole thing is that even if it "succeeds" it will not to be to the benefit of the vast majority of the UK population. It will "succeed" on a statistical fantasy based on abstract statistical measures that don't reflect the experience of people in practice. (in the same way, on the other foot, as GDP can be boosted simply by large increases in Government spending).

    The biggest joke of course is when you hear people arguing all the laffer nonsense about big cuts in taxation leading to increases in the tax take. Not because the principle is (always) flawed. But because as if somehow those advocating such approaches will look at this increased tax take (if it happens) and deciding that they will use all this additional money to boost public spending.

  • Crispin Odey’s hedge fund is up 145% by betting against UK bonds (Reuters).

    Kwasi provided consultancy services to Odey in a former life. Odey was also a big backer of Brexit.

    I don't think there is a link here in that is the inference. Odey takes big bets and likes to be contrary. The (implied) idea Kwarteng is doing his bidding is a bit tin foil hat stuff.
    I don’t think Kwarteng is doing his bidding (at least not since he was paid to do so).

    I merely note the tight connections between libertarian nutters, Brexit, and predatory hedge funders.
    The rational for Odey's bet is one that we all could have got. It was clear Truss would take radical measures to spur growth. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then more this type of policy = greater debt = yields rise.

    I really don't think it's more than that in Odey's case

    Still, Claridges will be happy (and on that note, I will shut my mouth)

  • Chancellor is not very "warm" is he, a bit like Liz in that sense.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    According to TASS, the IAEA officials at the Zaporozhye plant may leave it if the territory is formally annexed by Russia and Russia then nationalises the plant as enemy property. That would probably mean 1) more shelling can happen, and 2) there can be even more confusion about what actually is happening, including within the compound. For these reasons, we should hope the IAEA stays.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,025
    The Ukranians continue massively to impress with their media campaign.

    Two videos from this week:

    Russia's lend-lease programme for Ukraine competing with the Americans.

    We continue to rely on russia for the provision of weapons while we await those that will be provided as part of the Lend-Lease program.
    https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1572947574016933888

    About Ua helicopters, on the 50th Anniversary of M*A*S*H:

    The legendary television series "M*A*S*H" turns 50.
    One day there will be many great films and series created based on the stories of our brave soldiers and medics.

    https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1573292346594107392
  • Any good news, recently? Well, yes, the smoke level in my area has come down in the last two days. But I expect most were asking for something less personal.

    And there is some good news on a larger scale. For example, governments in the US are getting more rational about nuclear power: "After years of grim forecasts and premature reactor closures, the domestic nuclear energy sector is suddenly enjoying a winning streak.

    Last week, Camden, N.J.-based Holtec International announced that it plans to reopen the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, which was prematurely shuttered on May 20. Holtec wants to use some of the $6 billion appropriated in last year’s infrastructure bill to support the continued operation of existing nuclear reactors. The company’s move was endorsed by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who released a statement saying that she had sent a letter to the Department of Energy to support Holtec’s application for “a federal grant under the Civil Nuclear Credit Program” to save Palisades and thus protect “600 high-paying jobs at the plant and 1,100 additional jobs throughout the community.”

    The pending return of Palisades is the second big win for the U.S. nuclear sector in as many weeks."
    source: https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/09/23/just-19-think-the-chancellors-changes-will-make-them-better-off/#vanilla-comments

    Palisades would be the fourth recent win in the US, if the rescue is successful.

    For years I have been saying that, if you are worried about global warming -- and can do arithmetic -- you should favor more nuclear power.

    It's especially important now, since electrcity from nuclear plants can displace electricity from natural gas plants, helping stabilize, or even lower the price of natural gas around the world.

    (It's my impression that this increasing rationality on nuclear can be found in most of the free world.)
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    Landlords can offset mortgage interest, but pay tax on the rent which is more. Homeowners can't offset mortgage interest but pay no tax on the benefit they accrue from living in the house. (Both groups pay council tax.) Homeowners also get a better capital gains shield. I'm not sure the fiscal treatment is really better for renters and landlords - I'd expect a much lower home ownership rate if it were - but it's certain that the change of direction in favour of rental tenancies changed the proportion at the margin.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited September 23
    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,812
    I think Mike's point about the public view being influenced by perceptions of the administration is spot on. A casual listener will have heard that there are a lot of unfunded tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but that the Government believes they will result in good growth so it will all pay off. If the Government had started the week quite popular, that might be persuasive, but because the general view is dubious, the predictions of growth will run into scepticism.

    Truss has been unlucky in that her big-bang energy subsidy was drowned out by the Queen's death.
    The Tory redtops may be able to shift the narrative for a few days, but I'll be surprised if there's a lasting Tory bounce.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506
    Apparently there are rumours of a coup in China. One for the cat amongst all the other pigeons...
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    I think Mike's point about the public view being influenced by perceptions of the administration is spot on. A casual listener will have heard that there are a lot of unfunded tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but that the Government believes they will result in good growth so it will all pay off. If the Government had started the week quite popular, that might be persuasive, but because the general view is dubious, the predictions of growth will run into scepticism.

    Truss has been unlucky in that her big-bang energy subsidy was drowned out by the Queen's death.
    The Tory redtops may be able to shift the narrative for a few days, but I'll be surprised if there's a lasting Tory bounce.

    They dont need a bounce Nick, they need it to work, inflation to come down and any recession to be as shallow as a puddle. Then theyll be ok. If not, game over. Bounce now is pointless.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506
    The energy rises are going to be brutal, subsidy or no subsidy.
  • Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    One man's timidity is another's prudence.
  • We should invest in nuclear power, but the failure of Boomers in the 90s to put money behind fusion means we're about 30 years too late to get the benefits before climate change destroys equatorial regions. We're already experiencing the first spasms of a second Migration Period - it's going to get significantly worse, with tens of millions fleeing into Europe to escape inhospitable temperatures caused by Western Boomer selfishness.
  • Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    One man's timidity is another's prudence.
    Yes, that is true, but prudence/timidity has seen us going nowhere, slowly.
    A different approach may work wonders. Or it may screw us up. But its time to try it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,812
    edited September 23

    I think Mike's point about the public view being influenced by perceptions of the administration is spot on. A casual listener will have heard that there are a lot of unfunded tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but that the Government believes they will result in good growth so it will all pay off. If the Government had started the week quite popular, that might be persuasive, but because the general view is dubious, the predictions of growth will run into scepticism.

    Truss has been unlucky in that her big-bang energy subsidy was drowned out by the Queen's death.
    The Tory redtops may be able to shift the narrative for a few days, but I'll be surprised if there's a lasting Tory bounce.

    They dont need a bounce Nick, they need it to work, inflation to come down and any recession to be as shallow as a puddle. Then theyll be ok. If not, game over. Bounce now is pointless.
    Inflation will almost certainly come down by 2024, but even on optimistic assumptions I can't see people feeling growth by then - at most they'll see some headlines about GDP. Very few people are expecting pay rises next year to match current inflation, so they'll go into 2024 feeling poorer. and national statistics won't be enough to cheer them. I think Truss does need a bounce now to help weather the next year.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited September 23

    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
  • I think Mike's point about the public view being influenced by perceptions of the administration is spot on. A casual listener will have heard that there are a lot of unfunded tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but that the Government believes they will result in good growth so it will all pay off. If the Government had started the week quite popular, that might be persuasive, but because the general view is dubious, the predictions of growth will run into scepticism.

    Truss has been unlucky in that her big-bang energy subsidy was drowned out by the Queen's death.
    The Tory redtops may be able to shift the narrative for a few days, but I'll be surprised if there's a lasting Tory bounce.

    How can a former MP be so silly? It's not about an initial bounce post "election", which always dissipates, or about an illusionary bounce upon announcing a budget, but about delivering growth in two years time. I don't think they'll achieve it, but it's clearly the plan they're working towards, not pissing about with good headlines for three days followed by a continuation of Boris era stagnation.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    edited September 23
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    NIESR: "We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2% over 23-24."

    https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/independent-assessment-mini-budget

    Which is fine, realistically we need 6 years of 2% over trend growth to just get back to the absolute tax take we have today. I don't see how this will give us 3.5-4% annual growth rates. We're betting the house on this but we've probably backed the wrong horse. I have no ideological issue with cutting taxes to stimulate growth, the taxes that have been cut are not going to deliver the extra growth because it doesn't deliver business investment and that's where the UK economy has been struggling for 15 years. The personal tax burden is actually not bad compared to our competitor nations, it's the business investment environment. This splurge does absolutely nothing to fix it.
    This
    I do have ideological issues with smaller state, very small tax take particularly on most wealthy, it creates apartheid - apartheid of the pocket, which is why I vote Lib Dem. But ideological differences is why we have democracy and debates on PB, they are not something to go away.

    But surely the fiscal conservative, balance books approach to smaller state smaller smaller tax take is better approach to achieve the end result? “We have cut so much fat from client state, we have £20B in pocket we will now use on tax cuts.” That is a very different way the Conservatives could have gone about it? The dash for growth from trickle down economics suggests to me not all the money gets passed on into growth creating investment, dash for growth is old fashioned economics that leads to the pain of boom and bust?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    I think Mike's point about the public view being influenced by perceptions of the administration is spot on. A casual listener will have heard that there are a lot of unfunded tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but that the Government believes they will result in good growth so it will all pay off. If the Government had started the week quite popular, that might be persuasive, but because the general view is dubious, the predictions of growth will run into scepticism.

    Truss has been unlucky in that her big-bang energy subsidy was drowned out by the Queen's death.
    The Tory redtops may be able to shift the narrative for a few days, but I'll be surprised if there's a lasting Tory bounce.

    They dont need a bounce Nick, they need it to work, inflation to come down and any recession to be as shallow as a puddle. Then theyll be ok. If not, game over. Bounce now is pointless.
    Inflation will almost certainly come down by 2024, but even on optimistic assumptions I can't see people feeling growth by then - at most they'll see some headlines about GDP. Very few people are expecting pay rises next year to match current inflation, so they'll go into 2024 feeling poorer. and national statistics won't be enough to cheer them. I think Truss does need a bounce now to help weather the next year.
    We will have to disagree on that. She may or may not get a bounce now but i think its clear she is working to a late 2024 timetable, and everything is keyed to polling improving into that timescale.
  • Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
    We aren't going to get the boom, because we're borrowing huge amounts to cover to cover existing spending with no cuts, so credit becomes more expensive, which requires more borrowing, which requires more expensive credit, and so on and so forth. Which ends, like Greece, in the IMF imposing big spending cuts to pay creditors while my generation gets completely fucked.

    But at least, for a few beautiful years, the wealthy saved on their marginal tax rates to pay for second homes and hot tube heating etc.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    We should invest in nuclear power, but the failure of Boomers in the 90s to put money behind fusion means we're about 30 years too late to get the benefits before climate change destroys equatorial regions. We're already experiencing the first spasms of a second Migration Period - it's going to get significantly worse, with tens of millions fleeing into Europe to escape inhospitable temperatures caused by Western Boomer selfishness.

    There has been lots of research into fusion over the years, and a lot of money has been spent.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
    We aren't going to get the boom, because we're borrowing huge amounts to cover to cover existing spending with no cuts, so credit becomes more expensive, which requires more borrowing, which requires more expensive credit, and so on and so forth. Which ends, like Greece, in the IMF imposing big spending cuts to pay creditors while my generation gets completely fucked.

    But at least, for a few beautiful years, the wealthy saved on their marginal tax rates to pay for second homes and hot tube heating etc.
    Our debt to GDP position is not too bad compared to the G7, what is being done is imo well within the realms of reasonable extension of the deficit and debt to achieve the desired result, and if it achieves its desired result we will be in much better shape than the EU, for example, who are borderline fucked.
    I think theres too much certainty of disaster from the critics based entirely on idealology. That, ironically, being the main criticism they are making of the mini budget. They are pre judging an outcome based on the proposition not being what they would like. If we grew 8% next year they'd consider it dirty growth.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    edited September 24

    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
    We aren't going to get the boom, because we're borrowing huge amounts to cover to cover existing spending with no cuts, so credit becomes more expensive, which requires more borrowing, which requires more expensive credit, and so on and so forth. Which ends, like Greece, in the IMF imposing big spending cuts to pay creditors while my generation gets completely fucked.

    But at least, for a few beautiful years, the wealthy saved on their marginal tax rates to pay for second homes and hot tube heating etc.
    Our debt to GDP position is not too bad compared to the G7, what is being done is imo well within the realms of reasonable extension of the deficit and debt to achieve the desired result, and if it achieves its desired result we will be in much better shape than the EU, for example, who are borderline fucked.
    I think theres too much certainty of disaster from the critics based entirely on idealology. That, ironically, being the main criticism they are making of the mini budget. They are pre judging an outcome based on the proposition not being what they would like. If we grew 8% next year they'd consider it dirty growth.
    Every country has issues, and each country has different problems.

    Take the UK: we are better off than most European peers in terms of government debt; but on the other hand we have worse personal debt than most, and we are also highly dependent on consumption for economic activity, which means that our current account is in terrible condition.

    Germany, on the other hand, is highly dependent on external demand to keep its economy ticking. A slowdown in demand for cars and for capital goods (which is happening thanks to China's Zero Covid policy) makes it very hard for them to grow, even without energy headwinds.

    On the other hand, the UK's expansionary budget is a definite positive for Germany: British consumers will have more money, which they will spend on imports.
  • Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
    We aren't going to get the boom, because we're borrowing huge amounts to cover to cover existing spending with no cuts, so credit becomes more expensive, which requires more borrowing, which requires more expensive credit, and so on and so forth. Which ends, like Greece, in the IMF imposing big spending cuts to pay creditors while my generation gets completely fucked.

    But at least, for a few beautiful years, the wealthy saved on their marginal tax rates to pay for second homes and hot tube heating etc.
    Our debt to GDP position is not too bad compared to the G7, what is being done is imo well within the realms of reasonable extension of the deficit and debt to achieve the desired result, and if it achieves its desired result we will be in much better shape than the EU, for example, who are borderline fucked.
    I think theres too much certainty of disaster from the critics based entirely on idealology. That, ironically, being the main criticism they are making of the mini budget. They are pre judging an outcome based on the proposition not being what they would like. If we grew 8% next year they'd consider it dirty growth.
    The other countries in the G7 with higher debt to GDP and higher deficits than us are also fucked to a higher degree. Them being fucked doesn't mean we're not.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
    We aren't going to get the boom, because we're borrowing huge amounts to cover to cover existing spending with no cuts, so credit becomes more expensive, which requires more borrowing, which requires more expensive credit, and so on and so forth. Which ends, like Greece, in the IMF imposing big spending cuts to pay creditors while my generation gets completely fucked.

    But at least, for a few beautiful years, the wealthy saved on their marginal tax rates to pay for second homes and hot tube heating etc.
    Our debt to GDP position is not too bad compared to the G7, what is being done is imo well within the realms of reasonable extension of the deficit and debt to achieve the desired result, and if it achieves its desired result we will be in much better shape than the EU, for example, who are borderline fucked.
    I think theres too much certainty of disaster from the critics based entirely on idealology. That, ironically, being the main criticism they are making of the mini budget. They are pre judging an outcome based on the proposition not being what they would like. If we grew 8% next year they'd consider it dirty growth.
    The other countries in the G7 with higher debt to GDP and higher deficits than us are also fucked to a higher degree. Them being fucked doesn't mean we're not.
    I would suggest that government debt-to-GDP is not as big a problem as it appears, as (in most countries) a lot of that debt is held by the central bank.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
    We aren't going to get the boom, because we're borrowing huge amounts to cover to cover existing spending with no cuts, so credit becomes more expensive, which requires more borrowing, which requires more expensive credit, and so on and so forth. Which ends, like Greece, in the IMF imposing big spending cuts to pay creditors while my generation gets completely fucked.

    But at least, for a few beautiful years, the wealthy saved on their marginal tax rates to pay for second homes and hot tube heating etc.
    Our debt to GDP position is not too bad compared to the G7, what is being done is imo well within the realms of reasonable extension of the deficit and debt to achieve the desired result, and if it achieves its desired result we will be in much better shape than the EU, for example, who are borderline fucked.
    I think theres too much certainty of disaster from the critics based entirely on idealology. That, ironically, being the main criticism they are making of the mini budget. They are pre judging an outcome based on the proposition not being what they would like. If we grew 8% next year they'd consider it dirty growth.
    The other countries in the G7 with higher debt to GDP and higher deficits than us are also fucked to a higher degree. Them being fucked doesn't mean we're not.
    I would suggest that government debt-to-GDP is not as big a problem as it appears, as (in most countries) a lot of that debt is held by the central bank.
    The other poster suggested the higher government debt-to-GDP ratio of other countries was a reason why everything is actually fine, not me. I'd suggest the massive interest payments we're racking up as a consequence of borrowing to cover existing spending with no spending cuts, and the rampant rentierism (in the UK and other G7 economies), is actually a really big problem, despite the reluctance of the political class to consider it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    Its provoked a bit of a brouhaha this mini budget!
    I'm so angry im getting a tax cut of 2.25% said nobody, ever
    Im mad as hell at stamp duty disappearing on everything under 250k said all the first time buyers
    How DARE they freeze the energy cap for 2 years and give everyone 400 quid off their bills muttered everybody
    I want to pay more for my beer, wine and spirits! Screamed pub goers
    My business NEEDS to pay 25% corporation tax, not 19%, i dont want to grow and employ more people plead business owners.
    Yes, bankers and top rate is not redistributive but nor is it all that was done. It will work or it will not. We've had the timid in charge for too long.

    Because this largesse is being funded by borrowing, young people still have to pay all those taxes, plus interest - it's just delayed a few years. That's why we're not happy
    Not if we get the boom. Growth to outstrip the costs. Then everyone will be loving it. Those that are completely addicted to how its been done since the early 90s are working on the basis this will fail. If so, yeah it'll be bleak. But if not we could be SO much better off than the EU and US. Time will tell
    We aren't going to get the boom, because we're borrowing huge amounts to cover to cover existing spending with no cuts, so credit becomes more expensive, which requires more borrowing, which requires more expensive credit, and so on and so forth. Which ends, like Greece, in the IMF imposing big spending cuts to pay creditors while my generation gets completely fucked.

    But at least, for a few beautiful years, the wealthy saved on their marginal tax rates to pay for second homes and hot tube heating etc.
    Our debt to GDP position is not too bad compared to the G7, what is being done is imo well within the realms of reasonable extension of the deficit and debt to achieve the desired result, and if it achieves its desired result we will be in much better shape than the EU, for example, who are borderline fucked.
    I think theres too much certainty of disaster from the critics based entirely on idealology. That, ironically, being the main criticism they are making of the mini budget. They are pre judging an outcome based on the proposition not being what they would like. If we grew 8% next year they'd consider it dirty growth.
    The issue is less with the deficit, it is that there is no credible plan to return to debt management, while the measures are inflationary, regressive, and don’t look to improve productivity ie long term growth.

    It’s just a giveaway for the rich, paid for by everybody else in terms of higher inflation and interest rates.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944

    We should invest in nuclear power, but the failure of Boomers in the 90s to put money behind fusion means we're about 30 years too late to get the benefits before climate change destroys equatorial regions. We're already experiencing the first spasms of a second Migration Period - it's going to get significantly worse, with tens of millions fleeing into Europe to escape inhospitable temperatures caused by Western Boomer selfishness.

    What's all this nonsense about Boomers.
  • New thread.
This discussion has been closed.