It'll probably get worse. The number of people who believe in doing the absolute minimum necessary in their job/work is increasing according to surveys.
AI is gonna put them all out of work. All this will seem laughably irrelevant in 5 years
And good riddance
the only people left with jobs will be artisanal flint knappers, travel journalists and teenage hookers. Lol
In which case a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable, otherwise with few permanent and full time jobs not replaced by AI we would just have permanent riots and a surge in thefts and burglaries
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
Excuse the ignorance, but what is “full expensing”?
It'll probably get worse. The number of people who believe in doing the absolute minimum necessary in their job/work is increasing according to surveys.
AI is gonna put them all out of work. All this will seem laughably irrelevant in 5 years
And good riddance
the only people left with jobs will be artisanal flint knappers, travel journalists and teenage hookers. Lol
Hoping that doesn't include the new startup i am involved with....it for the record doesn't involve flint knapping
I didn't see National Insurance contributions being axed/reduced, etc. Timeframe still works (especially as the NICs reduction kicks in on January 6th)
I can't see Sunak giving up 6 months as PM unless there is enough polling evidence he could win a Spring general election
How will they be unable to pay a relatively small fraction of £2.25 million as a tax bill when in possession of a £2.25 million estate?
That's purely a cashflow issue that can be managed by various methods, I think - having gone through this recently.
No idea of the actual case, but in a worst case the liability is £770,000, ie 40% of 2.25m - 325K.
This doesn't seem much as long as it is someone else's liability. Even for the well heeled it's really quite a chunk. And such an estate may, in some places, be just a decently nice house and nothing more.
If you read the piece, it's the elderly dad with a £650k property, £1.4 million share portfolio, and £200-250k in cash, concerned about a cashflow block because of the need to pay iHT before getting full control of the Estate. So it's like one of those puzzles with one tile missing and you have to make a picture of a puppy by shuffling things round.
We had a bit of that for my parents with savings institutions refusing to release control of savings accounts for quite some time.
It's a bribe, and an unsustainable one (look at the spending assumptions needed to make it work), but it's an impressive one.
NI cut, but fiscal drag on income tax etc. is partly what pays for it. What’s the end result of that? It’s better for people earning through work than people earning through other ways. Yes? Am I right in that analysis?
Yes. It is a small step towards the obvious conclusion: the complete abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT so we all pay the same. Why should we pay less tax on investment income or pensions than on earned income?
Because pensioners vote Conservative?
It's an interesting experiment; the orthodoxy is that people think "tax bad, NI good" which is why we've had the quiet shift from income tax to NI over decades. Pushing the other way is probably a good thing, but I'm curious to see how it lands with voters.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
Excuse the ignorance, but what is “full expensing”?
Businesses can now offset all of their capital investment against corporation tax. For every £1bn invested, they receive a £250m tax credit. The next step, IMO, would be to add intangibles investment as an allowable category but that becomes tricky because you could conceivably push consultancy fees etc... into that category.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
I am shocked there is any predicted growth tbh.... conditions are tough, taxes are high, inflation is high, interest rates are high, productivity is low...physical retail is in the toilet.
To me it feel like Wylie Coyote when he runs off the cliff and hasn't realised no ground below.
We’ve got net migration of 500-700,000. If you can’t squeeze a tiny bit of growth from the fastest influx of migrants in our nation’s history then something is awry
We are so fucked. We are a national Ponzi scheme just waiting for a Fascist to take advantage
Are you offering?
Whilst we do have more working age people coming in, we also have increasing numbers of retired / effectively retired Brits. About 200k a year? Since many of them are very comfortable and self-righteous, heaven knows what we do about it.
“Key nugget from OBR: the windfall which the Chancellor just spent on tax cuts “is mainly a reflection of a £19.1bn erosion in the real value of departmental spending.”
Now that is extremely grim. Public services are awful - but get used to things being a whole lot worse
It'll probably get worse. The number of people who believe in doing the absolute minimum necessary in their job/work is increasing according to surveys.
AI is gonna put them all out of work. All this will seem laughably irrelevant in 5 years
And good riddance
the only people left with jobs will be artisanal flint knappers, travel journalists and teenage hookers. Lol
In which case a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable, otherwise with few permanent and full time jobs not replaced by AI we would just have permanent riots and a surge in thefts and burglaries
What’s a “Robot Tax”, and how does the government collect it when many of these ‘robots’ are computers in China accessed online?
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
How can Sunak ever admit that Liz Truss was right though?
It'll probably get worse. The number of people who believe in doing the absolute minimum necessary in their job/work is increasing according to surveys.
AI is gonna put them all out of work. All this will seem laughably irrelevant in 5 years
And good riddance
the only people left with jobs will be artisanal flint knappers, travel journalists and teenage hookers. Lol
Hoping that doesn't include the new startup i am involved with....it for the record doesn't involve flint knapping
In all seriousness, people should now be soberly planning for an AI dominated future, It is nearly here
No one can be sure what jobs will survive, but we can be sure low-mid level cognitive jobs will go very early. Basic accountancy, basic lawyering, clerical stuff, anything that needs moderate brain power and minimal personal skills
A lot of lower level creative work. News journalism. Illustrating. Graphic design. Advertising. Lots and lots of jobs in finance will vanish overnight. Coding. Architecture. Civil servants processing paperwork. And so on
SOME humans will still do these jobs, but they will supervise multiple AI and 90% of the staff will be axed
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people...
Where does state violence come from, in your view? I'm guessing the answer has something to do with various isms.
In the modern period, I would argue that the state essentially exists to protect capital - it is there to protect private property, to assure contracts are upheld, to manage economies and such. If you look at state violence - whether that is the police, or the army, or even the violence of economic policies - that's what they bend towards.
If you mean specifically the state violence of Israel - I think that comes from the specific idea of Zionism in the Israeli ruling class. There are understandable reasons for Zionism to exist, such as the arguments people make here about a safe state for Jewish people, and the claim to the land going back 2,000 years, but I also think there are bad expressions and reasons for Zionism. Machoism is very important in Zionism (I read a really interesting article of a man who survived the death camps who collected stories of other Holocaust survivors who talked about how those Jewish people were not actually that well considered during the early period of Israel's existence - that the "strong Jews" had escaped and made Israel and it was only the "weak Jews" who were killed in the Holocaust; edit: found it https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/04/23/the-secret-suffering-of-israels-holocaust-survivors/82c1a7ba-3233-4351-b4b8-f7387e291335/) Some Zionists were happy with a two state solution, others weren't - politically the faction that weren't seem to have won.
It'll probably get worse. The number of people who believe in doing the absolute minimum necessary in their job/work is increasing according to surveys.
AI is gonna put them all out of work. All this will seem laughably irrelevant in 5 years
And good riddance
the only people left with jobs will be artisanal flint knappers, travel journalists and teenage hookers. Lol
Hoping that doesn't include the new startup i am involved with....it for the record doesn't involve flint knapping
In all seriousness, people should now be soberly planning for an AI dominated future, It is nearly here
No one can be sure what jobs will survive, but we can be sure low-mid level cognitive jobs will go very early. Basic accountancy, basic lawyering, clerical stuff, anything that needs moderate brain power and minimal personal skills
A lot of lower level creative work. News journalism. Illustrating. Graphic design. Advertising. Lots and lots of jobs in finance will vanish overnight. Coding. Architecture. Civil servants processing paperwork. And so on
SOME humans will still do these jobs, but they will supervise multiple AI and 90% of the staff will be axed
Looks like i will have to prepare to become a lugger of concrete bags on the beaches of Asia instead then....
It'll probably get worse. The number of people who believe in doing the absolute minimum necessary in their job/work is increasing according to surveys.
AI is gonna put them all out of work. All this will seem laughably irrelevant in 5 years
And good riddance
the only people left with jobs will be artisanal flint knappers, travel journalists and teenage hookers. Lol
In which case a UBI funded by a robot tax is inevitable, otherwise with few permanent and full time jobs not replaced by AI we would just have permanent riots and a surge in thefts and burglaries
What’s a “Robot Tax”, and how does the government collect it when many of these ‘robots’ are computers in China accessed online?
There could be a self-assessment system and the robots declare their liability themselves and pay it.
I didn't see National Insurance contributions being axed/reduced, etc. Timeframe still works (especially as the NICs reduction kicks in on January 6th)
I can't see Sunak giving up 6 months as PM unless there is enough polling evidence he could win a Spring general election
Imagine he's unable to get grip of waiting lists and the small boats issue. The Supreme Court or the Lords intervenes. Add those revised growth figures into the mix (especially '24 and '25) and you start to think that going sooner rather than later is a better option. Sticking around until next autumn (or going to term) would be existential.
Go early and you may just be able to reduce your losses. Possibly pull things back to Hung Parliament territory as people's minds focus. It's an easy pitch to make: "We've cut taxes, halved inflation, green shoots of recovery etc. Do you want to risk it?"
I think they've fallen into the ULEZ trap. Identified a few wedge issues (such as immigration, small boats and green issues) and think they can punish Labour for it.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
Excuse the ignorance, but what is “full expensing”?
It allows businesses to put 100% of the cost of new equipment etc against tax rather than claiming it back through depreciation over a period of years. It should encourage marginal capital investment and , ideally, increase productivity.
The Autumn Statement seems to have contained remarkably little, by comparison with all the hype. The extension of the business rate reliefs are not cuts in business taxes at all, but merely a continuation of what was already in place last year. All businesses have really got are the changes to capital allowances. As for the changes to personal NI contributions, I don't think they are even enough to compensate for even a single year of frozen income tax thresholds. And it's all undermined by a huge downgrading of previous growth forecasts. I don't think it will shift the polls at all in the Conservatives' favour.
So next year, Sunak will be reliant on tax cuts announced in March that will have had an impact for perhaps just 14 weeks by the time of the general election to try in order for him to try and convince people that the previous 14 years were just a bad dream.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I of course don't believe that terrorism is fine - but I do believe that it doesn't come out of nowhere. September 11th is in some ways a very good analogy - because I don't think "they hate us for our freedoms" is why 9/11 happened, and I don't think the response to 9/11 was morally (or even politically) good or positive.
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
Have you considered spinning the telescope round?
Netanyahu & Co. are, in that analysis, the product of a state of unending, existential war since 1948.
Of course - and I've laid blame and culpability here on the Balfour Declaration and the US and Western Imperial history for that, too. I've also talked about the history of European and Christian anti-Semitism. But the Jewish people were not given a state in Germany, for example, or somewhere else in Europe - despite it being European Christian anti-Semitism that tried to eradicate them. They were given land in the Middle East, partly because that's what some Zionists wanted and partly because that benefited Western interests (and a lot because European anti-Semitism meant Europeans with power still didn't want Jewish people in Europe). That may make today's Zionists less culpable for that past - but it doesn't make them less culpable for the actions of the Israeli state today than today's Palestinians or (indeed) Hamas.
I think it would have been unethical to impose a ban on Jewish emigration to Palestine, after 1890.
Mr. grss, Jews were trying to get themselves land in that part of the world under the Seleucids, over 2,000 years ago. It's also where the so-called Jewish War chronicled by Josephus occurred.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
But it is known there were many discussions about where the new Jewish state could have been, including places like Madagascar, and if the idea was that this was in some way in apology for the Holocaust, or to assure Jewish safety, then it would make more sense for those responsible for those things be the ones to give up something - not that other colonised people should suffer that fate.
The Madagascar plan was devised by the Nazis, prior to the Final Solution, as a way of getting Jews out of the picture. I assume you mean Uganda, which some early Zionists toyed with early in the 20th century, but ultimately rejected out of hand because they felt no form of historical, cultural or religious attachment to it - it appears Herzl didn't really see that coming and was a bit surprised to learn just how connected many of his co-religionists felt about Israel.
The other main problem with your argument is that Uganda was also, of course, a colony at that point, and it's unclear the locals were very chuffed about the prospect of giving up part of their land to an incoming population they had nothing at all in common with.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
How can Sunak ever admit that Liz Truss was right though?
By funding it through fiscal drag etc rather than borrowing.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Fundamentally our productivity issues stem from a low risk appetite within UK industry. The reason companies would rather take on bodies than invest in plant is because people are lower risk and they can be laid off, a £1bn bit of kit will still have cost the £1bn years from now and in a downturn is a cost that can't be cut, it will likely depreciate causing a large balance sheet loss.
For about 20 years the government and regulators have been de-risking investment and now the UK is one of the most risk averse markets, hence companies upping sticks for New York. Investors have been trained to expect 3-4% per year in dividends and companies have cut back on capital investment to deliver that because their investors don't have the risk appetite for capital growth.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
I am shocked there is any predicted growth tbh.... conditions are tough, taxes are high, inflation is high, interest rates are high, productivity is low...physical retail is in the toilet.
To me it feel like Wylie Coyote when he runs off the cliff and hasn't realised no ground below.
We’ve got net migration of 500-700,000. If you can’t squeeze a tiny bit of growth from the fastest influx of migrants in our nation’s history then something is awry
We are so fucked. We are a national Ponzi scheme just waiting for a Fascist to take advantage
In terms of GDP per head of population, there is no growth at all.
In complete contrast to the hype of yesterday, that the growing economy had at last delivered scope for tax cuts.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
An AI system which can fill in the ridiculous forms needed to get evidence on commission from Scottish courts using the ridiculous computer systems operated by the Crown would be very welcome. I have just had a morning from hell.
I didn't see National Insurance contributions being axed/reduced, etc. Timeframe still works (especially as the NICs reduction kicks in on January 6th)
I can't see Sunak giving up 6 months as PM unless there is enough polling evidence he could win a Spring general election
Imagine he's unable to get grip of waiting lists and the small boats issue. The Supreme Court or the Lords intervenes. Add those revised growth figures into the mix (especially '24 and '25) and you start to think that going sooner rather than later is a better option. Sticking around until next autumn (or going to term) would be existential.
Go early and you may just be able to reduce your losses. Possibly pull things back to Hung Parliament territory as people's minds focus. It's an easy pitch to make: "We've cut taxes, halved inflation, green shoots of recovery etc. Do you want to risk it?"
I think they've fallen into the ULEZ trap. Identified a few wedge issues (such as immigration, small boats and green issues) and think they can punish Labour for it.
Sunak doesn't care about saving a few Tory MPs seats (which is not guaranteed anyway Spring or autumn election), he cares about staying PM as long as possible.
PMs likely to lose as Sunak is, Home, Callaghan, Major 1997, Brown etc normally go for the full 5 year term
Totally O/T ..i watched the Detectives last night.
The take away Rochdale still has serious serious issues. Definitely not bent coppers cough cough, jury tampering, child abuse, all going on for 10 years headed by a man who claims no income but lives in a massive house, fancy cars and a large food business.
My question was how deep did the corruption go.....
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
It's a bribe, and an unsustainable one (look at the spending assumptions needed to make it work), but it's an impressive one.
NI cut, but fiscal drag on income tax etc. is partly what pays for it. What’s the end result of that? It’s better for people earning through work than people earning through other ways. Yes? Am I right in that analysis?
Yes. It is a small step towards the obvious conclusion: the complete abolition of NI and its incorporation into IT so we all pay the same. Why should we pay less tax on investment income or pensions than on earned income?
Because pensioners vote Conservative?
It's an interesting experiment; the orthodoxy is that people think "tax bad, NI good" which is why we've had the quiet shift from income tax to NI over decades. Pushing the other way is probably a good thing, but I'm curious to see how it lands with voters.
Bollox, I have not and will never vote Tory
If Satan hadn't invented Alex Salmond you would be a Tory!
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
Excuse the ignorance, but what is “full expensing”?
It allows businesses to put 100% of the cost of new equipment etc against tax rather than claiming it back through depreciation over a period of years. It should encourage marginal capital investment and , ideally, increase productivity.
And costs the government nothing. It is a cash flow issue only - by giving 100% allowance in year 1 there isn't the 25% tax relief against corporation tax in years 2,3 and 4. I have no idea where the reported £9bn cost comes from.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Nobody has clearly told the OBR.....
To be fair, how do you economically model a technological revolution, that many have compared to the advent of electricity, and others to the harnessing of fire?
You can’t. So the OBR is pretending it isn’t happening, and that’s all they can do
Poignantly, the civil servants in the OBR could be first in the firing line. AI will do their job so much better, with instant access to an infinitude of information, that no human could ever process or comprehend, let alone piece together into a reasonable prediction
For comparison, see how DeepMind is now revolutionizing weather forecasting
“DeepMind says its new AI system is the world’s most accurate 10-day weather forecaster
Meteorologists believe their field is on the cusp of a revolution”
I am shocked there is any predicted growth tbh.... conditions are tough, taxes are high, inflation is high, interest rates are high, productivity is low...physical retail is in the toilet.
To me it feel like Wylie Coyote when he runs off the cliff and hasn't realised no ground below.
We’ve got net migration of 500-700,000. If you can’t squeeze a tiny bit of growth from the fastest influx of migrants in our nation’s history then something is awry
We are so fucked. We are a national Ponzi scheme just waiting for a Fascist to take advantage
In terms of GDP per head of population, there is no growth at all.
In complete contrast to the hype of yesterday, that the growing economy had at last delivered scope for tax cuts.
Daily Politics Labours Darren Jones explains that it would be wrong to raise income tax paid by the highest earners because there's already a lot of money going into the system and its not being spent effectively
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
Excuse the ignorance, but what is “full expensing”?
Businesses can now offset all of their capital investment against corporation tax. For every £1bn invested, they receive a £250m tax credit. The next step, IMO, would be to add intangibles investment as an allowable category but that becomes tricky because you could conceivably push consultancy fees etc... into that category.
Ah okay, cool then.
So how does this decision change the business case for HS2 and LHR’s new runway?
I am shocked there is any predicted growth tbh.... conditions are tough, taxes are high, inflation is high, interest rates are high, productivity is low...physical retail is in the toilet.
To me it feel like Wylie Coyote when he runs off the cliff and hasn't realised no ground below.
We’ve got net migration of 500-700,000. If you can’t squeeze a tiny bit of growth from the fastest influx of migrants in our nation’s history then something is awry
We are so fucked. We are a national Ponzi scheme just waiting for a Fascist to take advantage
In terms of GDP per head of population, there is no growth at all.
In complete contrast to the hype of yesterday, that the growing economy had at last delivered scope for tax cuts.
Yep, it’s bollocks
Yebbut 2p off .. it's a shameless bribe, whose origins don't bear thinking about, but it's blooming tempting.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
No. We have never had anything like this
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
It'll probably get worse. The number of people who believe in doing the absolute minimum necessary in their job/work is increasing according to surveys.
AI is gonna put them all out of work. All this will seem laughably irrelevant in 5 years
And good riddance
the only people left with jobs will be artisanal flint knappers, travel journalists and teenage hookers. Lol
Hoping that doesn't include the new startup i am involved with....it for the record doesn't involve flint knapping
I didn't see National Insurance contributions being axed/reduced, etc. Timeframe still works (especially as the NICs reduction kicks in on January 6th)
I can't see Sunak giving up 6 months as PM unless there is enough polling evidence he could win a Spring general election
Imagine he's unable to get grip of waiting lists and the small boats issue. The Supreme Court or the Lords intervenes. Add those revised growth figures into the mix (especially '24 and '25) and you start to think that going sooner rather than later is a better option. Sticking around until next autumn (or going to term) would be existential.
Go early and you may just be able to reduce your losses. Possibly pull things back to Hung Parliament territory as people's minds focus. It's an easy pitch to make: "We've cut taxes, halved inflation, green shoots of recovery etc. Do you want to risk it?"
I think they've fallen into the ULEZ trap. Identified a few wedge issues (such as immigration, small boats and green issues) and think they can punish Labour for it.
Sunak doesn't care about saving a few Tory MPs seats (which is not guaranteed anyway Spring or autumn election), he cares about staying PM as long as possible.
PMs likely to lose as Sunak is, Home, Callaghan, Major 1997, Brown etc normally go for the full 5 year term
If he wants to remain PM as long as possible, he needs to save the seats of his MPs. It makes sense to go earlier rather than later.
For the record, I'm not sure he wants to be PM for as long as possible. He's always struck me as somebody who loses interest in things, especially when things don't go his way.
It's not long since they put NI up to pay for social care. Today they announce they're putting NI back down. Clearly they're not going to fix social care then.
Mr. grss, Jews were trying to get themselves land in that part of the world under the Seleucids, over 2,000 years ago. It's also where the so-called Jewish War chronicled by Josephus occurred.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
But it is known there were many discussions about where the new Jewish state could have been, including places like Madagascar, and if the idea was that this was in some way in apology for the Holocaust, or to assure Jewish safety, then it would make more sense for those responsible for those things be the ones to give up something - not that other colonised people should suffer that fate.
The Madagascar plan was devised by the Nazis, prior to the Final Solution, as a way of getting Jews out of the picture. I assume you mean Uganda, which some early Zionists toyed with early in the 20th century, but ultimately rejected out of hand because they felt no form of historical, cultural or religious attachment to it - it appears Herzl didn't really see that coming and was a bit surprised to learn just how connected many of his co-religionists felt about Israel.
The other main problem with your argument is that Uganda was also, of course, a colony at that point, and it's unclear the locals were very chuffed about the prospect of giving up part of their land to an incoming population they had nothing at all in common with.
It's not long since they put NI up to pay for social care. Today they announce they're putting NI back down. Clearly they're not going to fix social care then.
Mr. grss, Jews were trying to get themselves land in that part of the world under the Seleucids, over 2,000 years ago. It's also where the so-called Jewish War chronicled by Josephus occurred.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
But it is known there were many discussions about where the new Jewish state could have been, including places like Madagascar, and if the idea was that this was in some way in apology for the Holocaust, or to assure Jewish safety, then it would make more sense for those responsible for those things be the ones to give up something - not that other colonised people should suffer that fate.
The Madagascar plan was devised by the Nazis, prior to the Final Solution, as a way of getting Jews out of the picture. I assume you mean Uganda, which some early Zionists toyed with early in the 20th century, but ultimately rejected out of hand because they felt no form of historical, cultural or religious attachment to it - it appears Herzl didn't really see that coming and was a bit surprised to learn just how connected many of his co-religionists felt about Israel.
The other main problem with your argument is that Uganda was also, of course, a colony at that point, and it's unclear the locals were very chuffed about the prospect of giving up part of their land to an incoming population they had nothing at all in common with.
This "Israel" would not have survived Idi Amin. Would they have joined the rest of the Ugandan Asian refugees coming to the UK in the early 70's?
It's not long since they put NI up to pay for social care. Today they announce they're putting NI back down. Clearly they're not going to fix social care then.
They don't even pretend to take public services seriously. How does it possibly work to increase minimum wage by 10% and expect councils and care providers to make that work without proportional increases in their budgets. They were already struggling to recruit and retain.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
No. We have never had anything like this
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
It's somewhat surprising that we're not all ten times richer already. When I first dipped my toe in the world of publishing a typical office would be a warren of hacks, subs, designers, photographers, proof-readers and other miscellaneous bods who sat around in case they were needed on press day. And an editor. And the editor's secretary to type his resounding prose and mop his brow. Nowadays the whole bang shoot has been replaced by a man and his dog and yet I still can't afford a sub to the Speccie.
I didn't see National Insurance contributions being axed/reduced, etc. Timeframe still works (especially as the NICs reduction kicks in on January 6th)
I can't see Sunak giving up 6 months as PM unless there is enough polling evidence he could win a Spring general election
Imagine he's unable to get grip of waiting lists and the small boats issue. The Supreme Court or the Lords intervenes. Add those revised growth figures into the mix (especially '24 and '25) and you start to think that going sooner rather than later is a better option. Sticking around until next autumn (or going to term) would be existential.
Go early and you may just be able to reduce your losses. Possibly pull things back to Hung Parliament territory as people's minds focus. It's an easy pitch to make: "We've cut taxes, halved inflation, green shoots of recovery etc. Do you want to risk it?"
I think they've fallen into the ULEZ trap. Identified a few wedge issues (such as immigration, small boats and green issues) and think they can punish Labour for it.
Sunak doesn't care about saving a few Tory MPs seats (which is not guaranteed anyway Spring or autumn election), he cares about staying PM as long as possible.
PMs likely to lose as Sunak is, Home, Callaghan, Major 1997, Brown etc normally go for the full 5 year term
You do tend to have some insight into the amoral pursuit and exercise of power by those who have made it, more able to strip out extraneous moral concerns than many B of us, so I set some weight by this opinion.
What I wonder is whether you see any counter currents:
(a) at what stage does polling get good enough to gamble away some of those months for the possibility of more time. Is 6-7 points behind and with momentum worth a punt of a summer election or does it need to get closer than that? (tell you what, I'd be sorely tempted to waver about Labour early next year if a pollster asked me!)
(b) All those MPs who are interested in carrying on are also looking at the polling. Any Tory MP from the 50th-250th safest is thinking how can they can save their own seat. If Sunak be gone is a common enough answer across that range, then a 4th leader in this parliament is very possible.
(c) In trying to stay leader for longer does Sunak, at any point, take a gamble on the electorate rather than on his own MPs? (this has been my main logic for thinking a May election is possible).
Can you see any circumstances under which a pure power play leads Sunak to go earlier?
Pensions up 8.5% - benefits up 6.7% - help for self employed - beer duty frozen - 2% NI cut for most workers - near 10% rise in living wage - business incentives - business investments
All this and I thought we had no money
And frankly I doubt it will change much but if things are looking up it is good news for labour if they win GE24
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
Excuse the ignorance, but what is “full expensing”?
It allows businesses to put 100% of the cost of new equipment etc against tax rather than claiming it back through depreciation over a period of years. It should encourage marginal capital investment and , ideally, increase productivity.
And costs the government nothing. It is a cash flow issue only - by giving 100% allowance in year 1 there isn't the 25% tax relief against corporation tax in years 2,3 and 4. I have no idea where the reported £9bn cost comes from.
The cost simply comes from the Treasury forecasts only going out 5 years. So the reversal happens after the end of the budget window. All a bit silly really.
I think it's a useful measure but won't have the impact on investment the government expects. Not least because a lot of our largest companies (both UK headquartered and inbound investors) measure tax on an accounting basis so this just drops into deferred tax liability and has no ETR impact.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
No. We have never had anything like this
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
Can you explain why? I think what we are seeing is going to be a useful tool in lots of places, but you frame it as something much more than that. What is it that makes you think that?
I should say I think what we have seen is lightyears away from AGI (whatever than really means).
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
No. We have never had anything like this
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
So just like Blockchain and "The Internet of Things"?
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
No. We have never had anything like this
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
So just like Blockchain and "The Internet of Things"?
Ah yes, the good old internet of things. And yet in Scotland haven't they regressed the bus service (so you no longer have a time for when the bus will actually arrive, rather than when it should?)
It's not long since they put NI up to pay for social care. Today they announce they're putting NI back down. Clearly they're not going to fix social care then.
Somebodies else problem....
Yup. Better to get your councillors to fight a general election for you before they lose their seats.
Well unless the tax bill is greater than £2.25million they'll have enough to cover it, won't they?
It is not the children paying it, it is the deceased estate which at £2.25 million will easily pay it and so it should
The problem is procedural and not uncommon. The IHT might be £0.6m, there is only £0.2m cash. HMRC wont give full access to the estate until they get their £0.6m so it is not as simple as selling shares or property to get the £0.4m. But it is all resolvable.
Ahead of the Autumn Statement I'd been to meet three mums on low incomes who told me uprating benefits in line with inflation should be one of the chancellor’s priorities.
They've now messaged me their reactions to what they heard in the speech.
Jo Baker Marsh is a lone parent of a 14-year-old son with additional needs who says the statement was "exactly what I feared".
"We are led to believe that the cuts in National Insurance, the uprating of Universal Credit etc are benefiting us, they aren’t, they are preparing for support for their party in the next general election," she says.
So you got what you were asking for, but its exactly what you feared ....scratches head...amazing how this random mum is actually a Guardian contributor & a campaginer. Small world.
Mr. grss, Jews were trying to get themselves land in that part of the world under the Seleucids, over 2,000 years ago. It's also where the so-called Jewish War chronicled by Josephus occurred.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
But it is known there were many discussions about where the new Jewish state could have been, including places like Madagascar, and if the idea was that this was in some way in apology for the Holocaust, or to assure Jewish safety, then it would make more sense for those responsible for those things be the ones to give up something - not that other colonised people should suffer that fate.
That's a bogus argument IMO. The stain of anti-Semitism is such , that wherever Jews went they would get accused of 'stealing' land and 'displacing' people. Unless you are talking about Antarctica, and even then people would probably complain about the penguins...
Life for Jews in the ME was far from good under Islamic rule, whatever the odd 'historians' you refer to say. Remember how Amin al-Husseini drafted declaration to Germany that said:
"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."
So if the stain of anti-Semitism would always make it that the Jewish people would be othered and accused of theft, why put the Jewish state in a place where that argument can be made more coherently rather than somewhere where it is more clear that it was an act of reparations? The people of Palestine, no matter their leaders, had nothing to do with the death camps and nothing to do with European anti-Semites colluding with the Nazis. Palestinians did not convince the Europeans and Americans to enforce stricter immigration controls against Jewish refugees that meant many either stayed where they were or tried to flee to the Middle East. If the concern were truly about making things right to the Jewish people, then would it not make more sense to give mainly European Jewish people a safe haven in Europe? Deal with European anti-Semitism? Instead Europeans decided to give Jewish people land far away, and use it as a way of saying to their own Jewish population "you're safer not staying here".
The other point is that Israel was, by many early Zionists, conceived of as a colonialist project. Activists like Jabotinsky called for "A Jewish state with a Jewish majority on both sides of the Jordan" and argued for expulsion of all Palestinians from the partitioned land (like many of today's Israeli ministers argue). Jabotinsky worked very closely and impacted the political thought of Benzion Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu's father. (For an interesting read I suggest this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42896509?seq=1)
Did you read the quote I gave, about a 'deal' the grand Mufti of Jerusalem wanted with Hitler? If so, how can you write the above with a straight face?
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
No. We have never had anything like this
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
Can you explain why? I think what we are seeing is going to be a useful tool in lots of places, but you frame it as something much more than that. What is it that makes you think that?
I should say I think what we have seen is lightyears away from AGI (whatever than really means).
This is going to be a spiritual challenge, way more than an economic, industrial, political and social challenge (tho it will be those, too). We are about to create an alien and unknowable intelligence superior to our own
Ahead of the Autumn Statement I'd been to meet three mums on low incomes who told me uprating benefits in line with inflation should be one of the chancellor’s priorities.
They've now messaged me their reactions to what they heard in the speech.
Jo Baker Marsh is a lone parent of a 14-year-old son with additional needs who says the statement was "exactly what I feared".
"We are led to believe that the cuts in National Insurance, the uprating of Universal Credit etc are benefiting us, they aren’t, they are preparing for support for their party in the next general election," she says.
So you got what you were asking for, but its exactly what you feared ....scratches head...amazing how this random mum is actually a Guardian contributor & a campaginer. Small world.
Well unless the tax bill is greater than £2.25million they'll have enough to cover it, won't they?
It is not the children paying it, it is the deceased estate which at £2.25 million will easily pay it and so it should
The problem is procedural and not uncommon. The IHT might be £0.6m, there is only £0.2m cash. HMRC wont give full access to the estate until they get their £0.6m so it is not as simple as selling shares or property to get the £0.4m. But it is all resolvable.
Indeed. The DT is whining about margin cases to try and build up the case for special treatment of rich and mostly Tory pensioners.
Cue 4 Yorkshire executors sketch.
In the old days the IR wouldn't even let you use the cash in the estate to pay IHT. It was the executors who had to find the money, usually by a short term loan if the rellies couldn't stump up. There was an arrangement with some banks to release money from bank accounts, but at least one big name bank wouldn't do that, as I recall from the experience of a friend of mine not so long ago - maybe 15-20 years.
I am shocked there is any predicted growth tbh.... conditions are tough, taxes are high, inflation is high, interest rates are high, productivity is low...physical retail is in the toilet.
To me it feel like Wylie Coyote when he runs off the cliff and hasn't realised no ground below.
We’ve got net migration of 500-700,000. If you can’t squeeze a tiny bit of growth from the fastest influx of migrants in our nation’s history then something is awry
We are so fucked. We are a national Ponzi scheme just waiting for a Fascist to take advantage
In terms of GDP per head of population, there is no growth at all.
In complete contrast to the hype of yesterday, that the growing economy had at last delivered scope for tax cuts.
Yep, it’s bollocks
Yebbut 2p off .. it's a shameless bribe, whose origins don't bear thinking about, but it's blooming tempting.
So you are back on board with Team Rishi? One down...
Ahead of the Autumn Statement I'd been to meet three mums on low incomes who told me uprating benefits in line with inflation should be one of the chancellor’s priorities.
They've now messaged me their reactions to what they heard in the speech.
Jo Baker Marsh is a lone parent of a 14-year-old son with additional needs who says the statement was "exactly what I feared".
"We are led to believe that the cuts in National Insurance, the uprating of Universal Credit etc are benefiting us, they aren’t, they are preparing for support for their party in the next general election," she says.
So you got what you were asking for, but its exactly what you feared ....scratches head...amazing how this random mum is actually a Guardian contributor & a campaginer. Small world.
Pensions up 8.5% - benefits up 6.7% - help for self employed - beer duty frozen - 2% NI cut for most workers - near 10% rise in living wage - business incentives - business investments
All this and I thought we had no money
And frankly I doubt it will change much but if things are looking up it is good news for labour if they win GE24
Rishi claimed earlier he has achieved his three fiscal targets.
Well unless the tax bill is greater than £2.25million they'll have enough to cover it, won't they?
It is not the children paying it, it is the deceased estate which at £2.25 million will easily pay it and so it should
Quite right. More precisely the executors, on behalf of and in trust for the deceased.
It's either a revealing slip, or a deliberate misstep to crank up the whining as to how badly the poor bairns are done by when they can't have every last penny.
On topic, sort of: I think your government should consider a "sin tax" on DEI* policies and organizations. In the US there have been considerable gains from our civil rights laws, making for stronger communities and stronger economies, but the attacks on civil rights laws by proponents of DEI have eroded those gains, in places.
(*Division, Exclusion and Inequity. If you look at the consequences, those three are a better description than the originals.)
Since you are discussing estate taxes, perhaps someone can tell me whether this ever actually happened, back in the 1950s UK:
According to the story I heard long ago, a wealthy man with a wastrel son could avoid much of the estate taxes by giving much of the estate to his son -- but he had to do it at least one year before his death. Which, knowing his son, he preferred to wait until near the end, and sometimes misjudged how long he had to live.
The arrival of home freezers provided a solution to the problem. The wealthy man could sign over the estate on his death bed -- and then be frozen for a year. Announcements could be made saying that he was in ill health, and not receiving visitors. After the year had passed, he could be thawed out and his death announced.
Those carrying this out might need some help from a local coroner, but the story seems plausible, otherwise.
Carr being himself it actually very interesting. He doesn't do many interviews in which he leaves the comedic act at the door.
He’s on tour in the US at the moment, and doing loads of podcasts. The guy is a genuine comedy historian, and has loads of references of US and UK comedy from half a century ago.
Since you are discussing estate taxes, perhaps someone can tell me whether this ever actually happened, back in the 1950s UK:
According to the story I heard long ago, a wealthy man with a wastrel son could avoid much of the estate taxes by giving much of the estate to his son -- but he had to do it at least one year before his death. Which, knowing his son, he preferred to wait until near the end, and sometimes misjudged how long he had to live.
The arrival of home freezers provided a solution to the problem. The wealthy man could sign over the estate on his death bed -- and then be frozen for a year. Announcements could be made saying that he was in ill health, and not receiving visitors. After the year had passed, he could be thawed out and his death announced.
Those carrying this out might need some help from a local coroner, but the story seems plausible, otherwise.
The chart I'd be most worried about as a Tory MP? The disaster of what's happened to household incomes: 3.5% fall between the last election and the coming one is the largest reduction in real living standards since ONS records began in the 1950s
In truth of course the headline is misleading, because although they have slightly risen absolutely, as a percentage they have dropped. I was surprised by the relatively low number for credit cards
Not surprising the average person writes a cheque less than once every two years.
The chart I'd be most worried about as a Tory MP? The disaster of what's happened to household incomes: 3.5% fall between the last election and the coming one is the largest reduction in real living standards since ONS records began in the 1950s
The chart I'd be most worried about as a Tory MP? The disaster of what's happened to household incomes: 3.5% fall between the last election and the coming one is the largest reduction in real living standards since ONS records began in the 1950s
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Again, productivity is about to be totally transformed by AI. We are on the verge if a new Industrial Revolution. People talk on here like this isn’t happening - it is
Is that not what has been said on the previous six similar occasions?
No. We have never had anything like this
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
Can you explain why? I think what we are seeing is going to be a useful tool in lots of places, but you frame it as something much more than that. What is it that makes you think that?
I should say I think what we have seen is lightyears away from AGI (whatever than really means).
This is going to be a spiritual challenge, way more than an economic, industrial, political and social challenge (tho it will be those, too). We are about to create an alien and unknowable intelligence superior to our own
My son, trained in AI, with 30 years experience, has built and programmed a massive MLL in his bedroom. It hums like a jet engine 24/7. He's been training it for months. He's just called, freaked out because it has just waved at him on the screen. True.
My son, trained in AI, with 30 years experience, has built and programmed a massive MLL in his bedroom. It hums like a jet engine 24/7. He's been training it for months. He's just called, freaked out because it has just waved at him on the screen. True.
Why the hell is he training a large ML model on a home pc?
Carr being himself it actually very interesting. He doesn't do many interviews in which he leaves the comedic act at the door.
He’s on tour in the US at the moment, and doing loads of podcasts. The guy is a genuine comedy historian, and has loads of references of US and UK comedy from half a century ago.
It would help if we had more spending on capital equipment and infrastructure, so that people can be more productive at work.
(Checks government plans.)
Bugger.
Full expensing was made permanent. That is a huge mover of the productivity needle. Also, raising the minimum wage will force companies to invest in capital rather than load up on people. You're point may have landed without these two items but they are pretty central to today's announcement.
But if we really wanted growth he could have gone even further. 150% relief on capital spending and qualifying training would have greatly incentivised the investment we desperately need to address our productivity issues.
Fundamentally our productivity issues stem from a low risk appetite within UK industry. The reason companies would rather take on bodies than invest in plant is because people are lower risk and they can be laid off, a £1bn bit of kit will still have cost the £1bn years from now and in a downturn is a cost that can't be cut, it will likely depreciate causing a large balance sheet loss.
For about 20 years the government and regulators have been de-risking investment and now the UK is one of the most risk averse markets, hence companies upping sticks for New York. Investors have been trained to expect 3-4% per year in dividends and companies have cut back on capital investment to deliver that because their investors don't have the risk appetite for capital growth.
It is very strange that the UK market is so dominated by dividend flow and that the US is much more capital growth focused. A company with a business model like Amazon wouldn’t have got started here. In the US it has grown to one of the largest companies in the world and yet barely paid a dividend. There are clearly cultural aspects to this but the long term cost of this conservatism is plain. Our government of whatever stripe needs to encourage investment in the UK. One of the tools to hand is the tax system and we need to use it to the full.
Comments
We had a bit of that for my parents with savings institutions refusing to release control of savings accounts for quite some time.
Whilst we do have more working age people coming in, we also have increasing numbers of retired / effectively retired Brits. About 200k a year? Since many of them are very comfortable and self-righteous, heaven knows what we do about it.
“Key nugget from OBR: the windfall which the Chancellor just spent on tax cuts “is mainly a reflection of a £19.1bn erosion in the real value of departmental spending.”
Now that is extremely grim. Public services are awful - but get used to things being a whole lot worse
No one can be sure what jobs will survive, but we can be sure low-mid level cognitive jobs will go very early. Basic accountancy, basic lawyering, clerical stuff, anything that needs moderate brain power and minimal personal skills
A lot of lower level creative work. News journalism. Illustrating. Graphic design. Advertising. Lots and lots of jobs in finance will vanish overnight. Coding. Architecture. Civil servants processing paperwork. And so on
SOME humans will still do these jobs, but they will supervise multiple AI and 90% of the staff will be axed
@BLACKPINK
Honorary MBE's, in recognition of the band’s role as climate advocates for the COP26 Summit in Glasgow 2021.
Buckingham Palace says the band encouraged "millions of young people" to engage with the UN climate summit on social media.
https://x.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1727318867028873722?s=20
If you mean specifically the state violence of Israel - I think that comes from the specific idea of Zionism in the Israeli ruling class. There are understandable reasons for Zionism to exist, such as the arguments people make here about a safe state for Jewish people, and the claim to the land going back 2,000 years, but I also think there are bad expressions and reasons for Zionism. Machoism is very important in Zionism (I read a really interesting article of a man who survived the death camps who collected stories of other Holocaust survivors who talked about how those Jewish people were not actually that well considered during the early period of Israel's existence - that the "strong Jews" had escaped and made Israel and it was only the "weak Jews" who were killed in the Holocaust; edit: found it https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/04/23/the-secret-suffering-of-israels-holocaust-survivors/82c1a7ba-3233-4351-b4b8-f7387e291335/) Some Zionists were happy with a two state solution, others weren't - politically the faction that weren't seem to have won.
Go early and you may just be able to reduce your losses. Possibly pull things back to Hung Parliament territory as people's minds focus. It's an easy pitch to make: "We've cut taxes, halved inflation, green shoots of recovery etc. Do you want to risk it?"
I think they've fallen into the ULEZ trap. Identified a few wedge issues (such as immigration, small boats and green issues) and think they can punish Labour for it.
So next year, Sunak will be reliant on tax cuts announced in March that will have had an impact for perhaps just 14 weeks by the time of the general election to try in order for him to try and convince people that the previous 14 years were just a bad dream.
The other main problem with your argument is that Uganda was also, of course, a colony at that point, and it's unclear the locals were very chuffed about the prospect of giving up part of their land to an incoming population they had nothing at all in common with.
For about 20 years the government and regulators have been de-risking investment and now the UK is one of the most risk averse markets, hence companies upping sticks for New York. Investors have been trained to expect 3-4% per year in dividends and companies have cut back on capital investment to deliver that because their investors don't have the risk appetite for capital growth.
In complete contrast to the hype of yesterday, that the growing economy had at last delivered scope for tax cuts.
PMs likely to lose as Sunak is, Home, Callaghan, Major 1997, Brown etc normally go for the full 5 year term
The take away Rochdale still has serious serious issues. Definitely not bent coppers cough cough, jury tampering, child abuse, all going on for 10 years headed by a man who claims no income but lives in a massive house, fancy cars and a large food business.
My question was how deep did the corruption go.....
You can’t. So the OBR is pretending it isn’t happening, and that’s all they can do
Poignantly, the civil servants in the OBR could be first in the firing line. AI will do their job so much better, with instant access to an infinitude of information, that no human could ever process or comprehend, let alone piece together into a reasonable prediction
For comparison, see how DeepMind is now revolutionizing weather forecasting
“DeepMind says its new AI system is the world’s most accurate 10-day weather forecaster
Meteorologists believe their field is on the cusp of a revolution”
https://thenextweb.com/news/deepmind-ai-graphcast-weather-forecasting
So how does this decision change the business case for HS2 and LHR’s new runway?
The nearest equivalent is the advent of the internet, this - I think - will be bigger
Everyone else has grannies
For the record, I'm not sure he wants to be PM for as long as possible. He's always struck me as somebody who loses interest in things, especially when things don't go his way.
You do tend to have some insight into the amoral pursuit and exercise of power by those who have made it, more able to strip out extraneous moral concerns than many B of us, so I set some weight by this opinion.
What I wonder is whether you see any counter currents:
(a) at what stage does polling get good enough to gamble away some of those months for the possibility of more time. Is 6-7 points behind and with momentum worth a punt of a summer election or does it need to get closer than that? (tell you what, I'd be sorely tempted to waver about Labour early next year if a pollster asked me!)
(b) All those MPs who are interested in carrying on are also looking at the polling. Any Tory MP from the 50th-250th safest is thinking how can they can save their own seat. If Sunak be gone is a common enough answer across that range, then a 4th leader in this parliament is very possible.
(c) In trying to stay leader for longer does Sunak, at any point, take a gamble on the electorate rather than on his own MPs? (this has been my main logic for thinking a May election is possible).
Can you see any circumstances under which a pure power play leads Sunak to go earlier?
Pensions up 8.5% - benefits up 6.7% - help for self employed - beer duty frozen - 2% NI cut for most workers - near 10% rise in living wage - business incentives - business investments
All this and I thought we had no money
And frankly I doubt it will change much but if things are looking up it is good news for labour if they win GE24
I think it's a useful measure but won't have the impact on investment the government expects. Not least because a lot of our largest companies (both UK headquartered and inbound investors) measure tax on an accounting basis so this just drops into deferred tax liability and has no ETR impact.
I should say I think what we have seen is lightyears away from AGI (whatever than really means).
Ahead of the Autumn Statement I'd been to meet three mums on low incomes who told me uprating benefits in line with inflation should be one of the chancellor’s priorities.
They've now messaged me their reactions to what they heard in the speech.
Jo Baker Marsh is a lone parent of a 14-year-old son with additional needs who says the statement was "exactly what I feared".
"We are led to believe that the cuts in National Insurance, the uprating of Universal Credit etc are benefiting us, they aren’t, they are preparing for support for their party in the next general election," she says.
So you got what you were asking for, but its exactly what you feared ....scratches head...amazing how this random mum is actually a Guardian contributor & a campaginer. Small world.
Cue 4 Yorkshire executors sketch.
In the old days the IR wouldn't even let you use the cash in the estate to pay IHT. It was the executors who had to find the money, usually by a short term loan if the rellies couldn't stump up. There was an arrangement with some banks to release money from bank accounts, but at least one big name bank wouldn't do that, as I recall from the experience of a friend of mine not so long ago - maybe 15-20 years.
It's either a revealing slip, or a deliberate misstep to crank up the whining as to how badly the poor bairns are done by when they can't have every last penny.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8_ulI_UlrFI
Cash payments rise for the first time in 10 years, in spite of the move against cash.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66796263
(*Division, Exclusion and Inequity. If you look at the consequences, those three are a better description than the originals.)
According to the story I heard long ago, a wealthy man with a wastrel son could avoid much of the estate taxes by giving much of the estate to his son -- but he had to do it at least one year before his death. Which, knowing his son, he preferred to wait until near the end, and sometimes misjudged how long he had to live.
The arrival of home freezers provided a solution to the problem. The wealthy man could sign over the estate on his death bed -- and then be frozen for a year. Announcements could be made saying that he was in ill health, and not receiving visitors. After the year had passed, he could be thawed out and his death announced.
Those carrying this out might need some help from a local coroner, but the story seems plausible, otherwise.
So -- did this ever actually happen?
https://x.com/TorstenBell/status/1727325043636555924?s=20
Not surprising the average person writes a cheque less than once every two years.
(He doesn’t mean the big published statistics, he means are you better off than you were four years ago?)
The guy is 51 himself.
There are clearly cultural aspects to this but the long term cost of this conservatism is plain. Our government of whatever stripe needs to encourage investment in the UK. One of the tools to hand is the tax system and we need to use it to the full.