What’s in the box? – politicalbetting.com

MattW said:

For anyone wanting a numbers workout ahead of teh budget, More or Less is interesting.

Debunking claims about road safety of Old Drivers vs Young Drivers, and to my eye talking about prison overcrowding whilst entirely ignoring the nearly 20% of the prison population are on remand:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0024f2y

I'm offski. See you at the Kludget .. er Budget.

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

Renegade_pollster said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:

The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.

We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.

Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.

Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.

I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.

I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,

I think that the plausible outcomes range from a Trump landslide in the EC, to a Harris EC landslide, though the popular vote will probably be only 2% to Harris. The swing states are very likely to swing the same way.

It all hinges on turnout IMO.

That is the main straw I am now clinging to. Harris has pumped serious money and time into a truly massive GOTV operation in the swing states, in Pennsylvania in particular. Trump basically hasn't with Musk's efforts generally being laughed at. The professionals generally claim GOTV can be worth 2-3%. If that is true Harris wins PA, MI, WI and very probably NC, GA and NV as well.

In the UK I criticise most such efforts as not as vital as people think. If it is worth 2-3% though that is more than enough as that covers about 7 states.

This GOTV operation seems to have gone to sleep in Nevada and North Carolina. Perhaps it’s different elsewhere.

The path surely has to be through the rust belt for Harris. I just don't see how she's not motivating registered Democrats to get out to vote in Nevada (Which I *think* would correlate with Arizona...) yet simultaneously switching Reps and Inds over to her side. Perhaps she is, but I'd be shitting my pants if I had a big short on Trump now tbh.
Objectively I do think Harris is the value overall mind.

If Trump wins Nevada, he almost certainly wins Arizona. If he wins them big, probably both Senate seats switch.

And, no. Rural Republicans, in Nevada, are not turning out in droves to vote for Harris.

But, as you say, there’s still a path to victory for Harris, if she holds the Rustbelt - even if Georgia flips.

The Harris path is WI, MI, PA.

I don't see another path but Harris campaign chief says there's lots. Hmmm...

Benpointer said:

Eabhal said:

FrankBooth said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

If the Tories were delivering this budget I can guarantee all the people saying it is wrong for taxes to go up would be cheering this on.

Well we have examples from the recent past. When Sunak was introducing NI++ and putting NI up, those right leaning were most definitely not cheering. The reaction was WTF is he doing, absolute muppet.

So what would they do differently?

We have done this loads previously. The obvious things to do, you get rid of the cliff edges at £50-60k and £100-120k, you merge NI/ IC, if you do this the right way you get more tax from the top edge, you get rid of the current system that nudges people to work / earn less.

But my question would be, why did they not do this in the 14 years they were in government?

Because they bottled it, then Brexit, then COVID. Combining NI / IC is a big move. However, the cliff edges there were no excuses.

But your original post was right leaning people would be cheering previous government raising NI, they most certainly weren't.

The problem is that Labour will now just play the “you had 14 years and look what you did” card.

I don’t know much about combining NI and IC but as I am very close to a cliff edge as you call it, it does intrigue me.

The problem is it would create winners and losers. The obvious losers being pensioners (who don't pay NI) and thy are far more likely to resent the change than the winners are to be grateful.

Here's something I prepared earlier on NIC/IT consolidation:

1) Small impact on pensioners as most do not have incomes that are affected by top rates of income tax
2) People on top 10% income are the group hit most significantly
3) Middle/high incomes (deciles 5-9) do much better
4) Overall, over 50% of households better off
5) Great for in-work households with dependent children, particularly single parents
6) Significant drop in Universal Credit bill as tax burden is reduced for low/medium earners with children (again, a big chunk of this is single parents)
7) Increase in child poverty because median incomes increase while those with no earnings don't benefit (perverse effect of the relative poverty calculation)


However, don't think that flat percentage increase in income tax is sensible because it bumps lots of high earners into >50% marginal tax rates. You'd need to moderate it, so the effects described above would be watered down somewhat.

This is a bit of a myth, it's actually the pensioners on £12k-£50k that would be hardest hit. (It's still the fair thing to do though.)

Combined ICT and NI rates are as follows (ignoring the personal allowance and CB cliff-edges for the moment):

For employees under 66 (State Retirement Age):
Up to £12,570pa 0%
£12,570 - £50,270 28% (20% ICT + 8% NI)
£50,270 - £125,140 42% (40% ICT + 2% NI)
>£125,140 47% (45% ICT + 2% NI)

For people over 66 and all those living off unearned income:
Up to £12,570pa 0%
£12,570 - £50,270 20%
£50,270 - £125,140 40%
>£125,140 45%

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Vox pops should be banned by law on Budget day.

Fixed for you....

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see we are getting the Chess fake news story again,

Rachel Reeves: Playing Labour's first big gambit

Reeves played chess from an early age, with her father teaching her the key moves. She became a national under-14 champion, and would "quietly thrash" any boys who might think they were in for an easy game, according to Ellie.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4ywl7w820o

It is bizarrely poor reporting. Reeves has never claimed to have won the tournament (she actually came 16th in the British Under-14s Girls tournament as I understand it). It's not clear to me why the BBC have got this simple fact wrong. Sloppy.

kinabalu said:

Anabobazina said:

Vox pops should be banned by law on Budget day.

Or any day if I had my way. Sort of nonsense you hear. Grrrr.

eek said:

Eabhal said:

noneoftheabove said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Dopermean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyv8y68e25o

I am struck by how much the lady on benefits gets. £33k a year. You would have to earn nearly £50k a year to take home that much, which is more than most of all the other people in that case study.

She doesn't get £33k a year.
Her landlord gets £11k, her carers get £10k, she gets the rest from which she'll have to cover bills and any difference between rent+care and hb+pip

You can't separate out landlord like that. We pretty much all pay the landlord or the bank for housing....

What I don't understand is why people in her situation haven't been moved into local authority owned housing ASAP so the state isn't paying these ridiculous sums for rent and she has a much more stable landlord who won't increase the rent overnight etc...

Right to buy. Councils blocked from reinvesting.

And now 41% of Right to Buy homes are being rented out privately.

At higher rents with (and this is just anecdotes) little maintenance because the landlords don't care and can't offered to do them.

TOPPING said:

Gallowgate said:

Nigelb said:

PFI story I came across yesterday.

Under the last Labour government, the local hospital (Victorian buildings) was sold off for housing development, and a replacement built, under a PFI contract.

The usual lock in on maintenance at silly prices, etc., for 30 years. And after 30 years, the hospital become the property of the PFI contract guys (or whichever foreign investor bought out the contract).

I work in this area and this is categorically not the case with most PFI schemes.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT OUR NIGEL HAS YET AGAIN SWALLOWED SOMETHING OFF THE INTERNET HOOK LINE AND SINKER AND IS NOW REPRESENTING IT ON PB AS FACT?

I don't believe it.

MattW said:

eek said:

Eabhal said:

noneoftheabove said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Dopermean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyv8y68e25o

I am struck by how much the lady on benefits gets. £33k a year. You would have to earn nearly £50k a year to take home that much, which is more than most of all the other people in that case study.

She doesn't get £33k a year.
Her landlord gets £11k, her carers get £10k, she gets the rest from which she'll have to cover bills and any difference between rent+care and hb+pip

You can't separate out landlord like that. We pretty much all pay the landlord or the bank for housing....

What I don't understand is why people in her situation haven't been moved into local authority owned housing ASAP so the state isn't paying these ridiculous sums for rent and she has a much more stable landlord who won't increase the rent overnight etc...

Right to buy. Councils blocked from reinvesting.

And now 41% of Right to Buy homes are being rented out privately.

At higher rents with (and this is just anecdotes) little maintenance because the landlords don't care and can't offered to do them.

A serious reform which is needed, but which is quite technical, is that Landlord Registration in England needs to be regional or national not per Council, and there is huge scope for efficiency saving.

In Scotland the national scheme is something like £80 per landlord plus £18 per property for 3 years for a typical rental property.

In England it will typically be more like £500-£800 per property for 5 years.

(Lots of discounts etc around the edges, and complication, but in England each Council with a significant scheme builds a huge bureaucracy.)

That all comes out of the rent, and is money which could go on something else such as maintenance or a modest lowering of rent levels - as in each local area it affects all properties in the market.

https://www.mygov.scot/renting-your-property-out/registration

eg Nottingham: https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/housing/private-rented-accommodation/information-for-landlords/licensing-for-landlords/selective-licensing/

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

eek said:

Eabhal said:

noneoftheabove said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Dopermean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyv8y68e25o

I am struck by how much the lady on benefits gets. £33k a year. You would have to earn nearly £50k a year to take home that much, which is more than most of all the other people in that case study.

She doesn't get £33k a year.
Her landlord gets £11k, her carers get £10k, she gets the rest from which she'll have to cover bills and any difference between rent+care and hb+pip

You can't separate out landlord like that. We pretty much all pay the landlord or the bank for housing....

What I don't understand is why people in her situation haven't been moved into local authority owned housing ASAP so the state isn't paying these ridiculous sums for rent and she has a much more stable landlord who won't increase the rent overnight etc...

Right to buy. Councils blocked from reinvesting.

And now 41% of Right to Buy homes are being rented out privately.

At higher rents with (and this is just anecdotes) little maintenance because the landlords don't care and can't offered to do them.

A serious reform which is needed, but which is quite technical, is that Landlord Registration in England needs to be regional or national not per Council, and there is huge scope for efficiency saving.

In Scotland the national scheme is something like £80 per landlord plus £18 per property for 3 years for a typical rental property.

In England it will typically be more like £500-£800 per property for 5 years.

(Lots of discounts etc around the edges, and complication, but in England each Council with a significant scheme builds a huge bureaucracy.)

That all comes out of the rent, and is money which could go on something else such as maintenance or a modest lowering of rent levels - as in each local area it affects all properties in the market.

https://www.mygov.scot/renting-your-property-out/registration

eg Nottingham: https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/housing/private-rented-accommodation/information-for-landlords/licensing-for-landlords/selective-licensing/

It won't all come out of rent at all. Landlords charge mostly on what the market will bear, not cost + margin.

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see we are getting the Chess fake news story again,

Rachel Reeves: Playing Labour's first big gambit

Reeves played chess from an early age, with her father teaching her the key moves. She became a national under-14 champion, and would "quietly thrash" any boys who might think they were in for an easy game, according to Ellie.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4ywl7w820o

It is bizarrely poor reporting. Reeves has never claimed to have won the tournament (she actually reached the Round of 16 in the UK Under-14s Girls Chess Championship as I understand it). It's not clear to me why the BBC have got this simple fact wrong. Sloppy.

Anabobazina said:

SandyRentool said:

If there was a betting market, I'd be tempted to go all-in on "No tie".

She is wearing a pussy-bow blouse. Does that count as a tie under BX rules??

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

PFI story I came across yesterday.

Under the last Labour government, the local hospital (Victorian buildings) was sold off for housing development, and a replacement built, under a PFI contract.

The usual lock in on maintenance at silly prices, etc., for 30 years. And after 30 years, the hospital become the property of the PFI contract guys (or whichever foreign investor bought out the contract).

So they are paid generously over thirty years, and then they get to keep the building at the end? What am I missing here?

An explanation for governmental stupidity ?

Government simply doesn't think much beyond the next election. At most the one beyond that - then it's someone else's problem.

Perhaps we should be grateful that we didn't get 40 new hospitals under the Tories.

See this is the frustration I had with Boris. We've had one of these "new" hospitals (Unless Reeves has halted the construction ) it's a children's ward so kids can stay overnight in Bassetlaw rather than making the trip to Doncaster hospital. It's definitely not a new hospital, but it is a substantial program to create a new ward. It's 100% being built https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3177176,-1.1118438,3a,90y,141.58h,84.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTY7yGmE_5508t0oO11jH3g!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=5.332603341806092&panoid=TY7yGmE_5508t0oO11jH3g&yaw=141.58379684078852!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw== - "40 new hospitals and substantial additions to existing hospitals" would have gone down well I'm sure. Just always that extra bit of porky pie that Boris always needed. I think he was actually addicted to lieing even when the truth would have gone down perfectly well.

Andy_JS said:

This is Rishi's final PMQ I think.

Andy_JS said:

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see we are getting the Chess fake news story again,

Rachel Reeves: Playing Labour's first big gambit

Reeves played chess from an early age, with her father teaching her the key moves. She became a national under-14 champion, and would "quietly thrash" any boys who might think they were in for an easy game, according to Ellie.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4ywl7w820o

It is bizarrely poor reporting. Reeves has never claimed to have won the tournament (she actually reached the Round of 16 in the UK Under-14s Girls Chess Championship as I understand it). It's not clear to me why the BBC have got this simple fact wrong. Sloppy.

Where's the BBC's misinformation expert when you need her?

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Nigelb said:

A couple of years off - they're only just starting to build the battery manufacturing - but Ford might actually deliver a cheap, mass market EV.

Ford's Goal For 'Game-Changer' Electric Truck: Match China's EVs
CEO Jim Farley says Ford's midsize electric truck will be able to match the Chinese automakers at the most elusive challenge yet: cost
https://insideevs.com/news/739153/ford-ceo-simplification-evs/

As a Ford driver I would not bet against them. They make excellent and reliable vehicles.

Their problem, on cost, in the US is the vast financial liabilities they are dragging round with them.

The US health care system just keeps on giving....

TheScreamingEagles said:

Another victory for my subtlety.

Nobody has picked up on the reference to the film Se7en in the headline.

Andy_JS said:

Too much chuminess in the Commons imo.

Pulpstar said:

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Nigelb said:

A couple of years off - they're only just starting to build the battery manufacturing - but Ford might actually deliver a cheap, mass market EV.

Ford's Goal For 'Game-Changer' Electric Truck: Match China's EVs
CEO Jim Farley says Ford's midsize electric truck will be able to match the Chinese automakers at the most elusive challenge yet: cost
https://insideevs.com/news/739153/ford-ceo-simplification-evs/

As a Ford driver I would not bet against them. They make excellent and reliable vehicles.

Their problem, on cost, in the US is the vast financial liabilities they are dragging round with them.

The US health care system just keeps on giving....

I did the sums yesterday, their state public healthcare costs are ~ 80% of ours per person so far as I could work out.

RochdalePioneers said:

If Sunak had been a person - like this - rather than an angry robot during the GE, the Tories would have done a lot better.

I have no idea who was advising him as PM, but they were terrible. I know that the man is warm and personable and yet he came across as such a tetchy idiot.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StillWaters said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Gallowgate said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

The F*ck Business Budget ?

The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.

Is it ?
Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs.
Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.

Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.

Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.

Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.

So long as:

1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall.
2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.

There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care
and construction. Now the reality is a lot of
people don't want those jobs but I think we
are a long way from significant
unemployment regardless.

NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-workforce-nutshell#:~:text=The NHS in England currently,time equivalent (FTE) basis.

Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?

Dealing with us getting older.
And older, and older.

It's a contributory factor, but a small one. This is one of the few things I know quite a bit about.

Most assessments of UK health spending find that increased chronic conditions and better technology (keeping people alive) are the reasons it's increasing so much. England's demographics are actually quite balanced due to immigration, yet their spending has increased just as much as ours has in Scotland.

Most demographic-linked spending in the UK is made in the last 12 months or so of life. You-only-die-once, so that doesn't matter too much except in the 2030s when we have lots of Boomers reaching their 80s. But a small blip, relatively.

That's disingenuous to suggest most are made in the last 12 months without accounting for when the remainder of the expenditure is made.

Exclude the last 12 months and the remaining roughly 50% is not spread evenly across the rest of your life. Apart from childbirth, which on average is now happening less than once per adult, it's vastly disproportionately in your later years.

That later years expenditure is happening in increasing amounts on top of, not instead of, last 12 month expenditure.

That's true. The point is that that relatively minor changes to the age profile of the population cannot explain the massive increase in health spending over the last few decades. It's increased from about 25% of all government spending in 2000 to about 45% now.

RochdalePioneers said:

If Sunak had been a person - like this - rather than an angry robot during the GE, the Tories would have done a lot better.

I have no idea who was advising him as PM, but they were terrible. I know that the man is warm and personable and yet he came across as such a tetchy idiot.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Too much chuminess in the Commons imo.

It is a very pleasant moment

nico679 said:

My advice to the WH !

Call a news conference. Biden apologies if his comments were mis-interpreted and at the same time they show clips of the NY rally to show why he was so incensed .

Some of the other speakers were horrific , one called for Dems to be slaughtered , one said Harris had pimp handlers and one called her the anti-Christ . The media so far has concentrated on the Puerto Rico joke and much of the public might be unaware of some of the other comments .

At this point I don’t see how this can’t help shine the light back onto the Trump campaign.

nico679 said:

My advice to the WH !

Call a news conference. Biden apologies if his comments were mis-interpreted and at the same time they show clips of the NY rally to show why he was so incensed .

Some of the other speakers were horrific , one called for Dems to be slaughtered , one said Harris had pimp handlers and one called her the anti-Christ . The media so far has concentrated on the Puerto Rico joke and much of the public might be unaware of some of the other comments .

At this point I don’t see how this can’t help shine the light back onto the Trump campaign.

Anabobazina said:

rottenborough said:

Oh dear Rishi seems to not know that Coast to Coast also takes in the Lakes.

Yes, I did wonder about that. Starmer would have known but very graciously gave him a free pass.

Casino_Royale said:

Forgot what a Labour government was like.

Backbencher after backbencher pleading for more handouts and welfare.

Casino_Royale said:

Just wondering what dogshit Reeves will pull out the hat.

Top rate back up to 50p (on the basis they're not "working people") is very possible.

JosiasJessop said:

Anabobazina said:

rottenborough said:

Oh dear Rishi seems to not know that Coast to Coast also takes in the Lakes.

Yes, I did wonder about that. Starmer would have known but very graciously gave him a free pass.

Why would Starmer have known? He gets a nosebleed whenever he's outside North London.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT rcs seems to have reinstated the irritatingly frequent saving of drafts.

Anabobazina said:

Casino_Royale said:

Just wondering what dogshit Reeves will pull out the hat.

Top rate back up to 50p (on the basis they're not "working people") is very possible.

Would prefer that she did that as long as she also removes the raid on the PA at £100k*

(*admittedly I might have skin in this particularly game)

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Are we still on this “Starmer is actually a North London luvvie” stuff? For goodness sake, no he isn’t.

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Are we still on this “Starmer is actually a North London luvvie” stuff? For goodness sake, no he isn’t.

Yes, he is.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StillWaters said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Gallowgate said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

The F*ck Business Budget ?

The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.

Is it ?
Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs.
Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.

Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.

Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.

Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.

So long as:

1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall.
2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.

There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care
and construction. Now the reality is a lot of
people don't want those jobs but I think we
are a long way from significant
unemployment regardless.

NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-workforce-nutshell#:~:text=The NHS in England currently,time equivalent (FTE) basis.

Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?

Dealing with us getting older.
And older, and older.

It's a contributory factor, but a small one. This is one of the few things I know quite a bit about.

Most assessments of UK health spending find that increased chronic conditions and better technology (keeping people alive) are the reasons it's increasing so much. England's demographics are actually quite balanced due to immigration, yet their spending has increased just as much as ours has in Scotland.

Most demographic-linked spending in the UK is made in the last 12 months or so of life. You-only-die-once, so that doesn't matter too much except in the 2030s when we have lots of Boomers reaching their 80s. But a small blip, relatively.

That's disingenuous to suggest most are made in the last 12 months without accounting for when the remainder of the expenditure is made.

Exclude the last 12 months and the remaining roughly 50% is not spread evenly across the rest of your life. Apart from childbirth, which on average is now happening less than once per adult, it's vastly disproportionately in your later years.

That later years expenditure is happening in increasing amounts on top of, not instead of, last 12 month expenditure.

That's true. The point is that that relatively minor changes to the age profile of the population cannot explain the massive increase in health spending over the last few decades. It's increased from about 25% of all government spending in 2000 to about 45% now.

The UKs demographic changes are not relatively minor though. The amount of over 90s in the UK since 2000 has nearly trebled.

Similar changes have happened with other elderly profile groups.

We lost my grandfather earlier this year aged 94. Yes the final 12 months would have cost considerably more (he was in a hospital bed most of final few months) but that's not to say the prior years would have been cheap by any shot of the imagination.

Every assessment of health spending in the UK (OBR, OECD, European Commission) finds the same thing - demographic pressure has not been a big factor for spending growth. Sure, the number of 90 year olds has increased - but that is marginal compared with a total population of 67 million people and conditions and technologies that affect them.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StillWaters said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Gallowgate said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

The F*ck Business Budget ?

The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.

Is it ?
Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs.
Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.

Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.

Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.

Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.

So long as:

1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall.
2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.

There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care
and construction. Now the reality is a lot of
people don't want those jobs but I think we
are a long way from significant
unemployment regardless.

NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-workforce-nutshell#:~:text=The NHS in England currently,time equivalent (FTE) basis.

Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?

Dealing with us getting older.
And older, and older.

It's a contributory factor, but a small one. This is one of the few things I know quite a bit about.

Most assessments of UK health spending find that increased chronic conditions and better technology (keeping people alive) are the reasons it's increasing so much. England's demographics are actually quite balanced due to immigration, yet their spending has increased just as much as ours has in Scotland.

Most demographic-linked spending in the UK is made in the last 12 months or so of life. You-only-die-once, so that doesn't matter too much except in the 2030s when we have lots of Boomers reaching their 80s. But a small blip, relatively.

That's disingenuous to suggest most are made in the last 12 months without accounting for when the remainder of the expenditure is made.

Exclude the last 12 months and the remaining roughly 50% is not spread evenly across the rest of your life. Apart from childbirth, which on average is now happening less than once per adult, it's vastly disproportionately in your later years.

That later years expenditure is happening in increasing amounts on top of, not instead of, last 12 month expenditure.

That's true. The point is that that relatively minor changes to the age profile of the population cannot explain the massive increase in health spending over the last few decades. It's increased from about 25% of all government spending in 2000 to about 45% now.

The UKs demographic changes are not relatively minor though. The amount of over 90s in the UK since 2000 has nearly trebled.

Similar changes have happened with other elderly profile groups.

We lost my grandfather earlier this year aged 94. Yes the final 12 months would have cost considerably more (he was in a hospital bed most of final few months) but that's not to say the prior years would have been cheap by any shot of the imagination.

Every assessment of health spending in the UK (OBR, OECD, European Commission) finds the same thing - demographic pressure has not been a big factor for spending growth. Sure, the number of 90 year olds has increased - but that is marginal compared with a total population of 67 million people and conditions and technologies that affect them.

Casino_Royale said:

Just wondering what dogshit Reeves will pull out the hat.

Top rate back up to 50p (on the basis they're not "working people") is very possible.

squareroot2 said:

Prepare to be poorer....

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StillWaters said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Gallowgate said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

The F*ck Business Budget ?

The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.

Is it ?
Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs.
Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.

Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.

Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.

Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.

So long as:

1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall.
2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.

There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care
and construction. Now the reality is a lot of
people don't want those jobs but I think we
are a long way from significant
unemployment regardless.

NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-workforce-nutshell#:~:text=The NHS in England currently,time equivalent (FTE) basis.

Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?

Dealing with us getting older.
And older, and older.

It's a contributory factor, but a small one. This is one of the few things I know quite a bit about.

Most assessments of UK health spending find that increased chronic conditions and better technology (keeping people alive) are the reasons it's increasing so much. England's demographics are actually quite balanced due to immigration, yet their spending has increased just as much as ours has in Scotland.

Most demographic-linked spending in the UK is made in the last 12 months or so of life. You-only-die-once, so that doesn't matter too much except in the 2030s when we have lots of Boomers reaching their 80s. But a small blip, relatively.

That's disingenuous to suggest most are made in the last 12 months without accounting for when the remainder of the expenditure is made.

Exclude the last 12 months and the remaining roughly 50% is not spread evenly across the rest of your life. Apart from childbirth, which on average is now happening less than once per adult, it's vastly disproportionately in your later years.

That later years expenditure is happening in increasing amounts on top of, not instead of, last 12 month expenditure.

That's true. The point is that that relatively minor changes to the age profile of the population cannot explain the massive increase in health spending over the last few decades. It's increased from about 25% of all government spending in 2000 to about 45% now.

The UKs demographic changes are not relatively minor though. The amount of over 90s in the UK since 2000 has nearly trebled.

Similar changes have happened with other elderly profile groups.

We lost my grandfather earlier this year aged 94. Yes the final 12 months would have cost considerably more (he was in a hospital bed most of final few months) but that's not to say the prior years would have been cheap by any shot of the imagination.

Every assessment of health spending in the UK (OBR, OECD, European Commission) finds the same thing - demographic pressure has not been a big factor for spending growth. Sure, the number of 90 year olds has increased - but that is marginal compared with a total population of 67 million people and conditions and technologies that affect them.

It's not marginal when most of the 67 million don't cost anything significant at all.

Half a million extra over 90s costs more than many millions of working age adults.