That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
Yes, please post that graph, I'd love to see it (and the underlying data that supports it).
Your facile comment is actually asking for a major research exercise which could only realistically be performed by HMRC which holds the key confidential tax data together with an outfit like the OBR which has access to a credible model of the economy with all relevant feedbacks incorporated
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
Yes, please post that graph, I'd love to see it (and the underlying data that supports it).
Your facile comment is actually asking for a major research exercise which could only realistically be performed by HMRC which holds the key confidential tax data together with an outfit like the OBR which has access to a credible model of the economy with all relevant feedbacks incorporated...
...which would then be entirely dependent on the accuracy of the model and would be attacked on those grounds five seconds after publication.
I wonder if tracking income vs tax rate for each country over time would be adequate?
They were discussing this case this morning on R4 and it was mentioned that the compensation situation is a long and difficult process - I would love someone to explain why it’s a long and difficult process? If the courts have cleared someone who has been sent away wrongly surely there should be initial fixed payment for each day spent inside and then further payments for various elements - for example extra payments for being fitted up by the police rather than an error.
It should surely take a matter of a couple of weeks to do the documentation for the first part and enable the wrongly punished to get moving recovering their life where possible.
There is also absolutely no place for charging them for their rent and board during their sentence which I find one of the most bizarre rules in a mad world.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
A controversial opinion, but perhaps having one end of the gyno department doing abortions while the other end does IVF?
About 3/4 of IVF procedures in the UK are funded privately and only about 1/4 are funded by the NHS. Again, plenty of the NHS funded activity is done in independent clinics rather than in hospitals.
So, a picture of "one end of the gyno department doing abortions while the other end does IVF" suggests a lack of understanding of reproductive healthcare services in the country. Also, as someone else said, these are different people. Some people in healthcare are being told to rest, go to bed, while others are being told to get up and move around. That is not a contradiction: different people at different points in their lives have different needs.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
You really are a misanthrope.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Why deny the poor the joy of being a parent.
So we pay for the IVF, then give them handouts because they cant afford to look after their children. Wonderful.
Those using IVF are more likely to be middle class professionals as they are more likely to have children in their mid to late 30s or early 40s than working class parents who tend to have them in their twenties or early 30s or sometimes even their teens.
The 2 child benefit cap ended benefits working class parents most, especially those on low incomes or unemployed, funded IVF boosts middle class parents most
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
The problem is every time there is a scandal a public inquiry is demanded. Which means lots of money for lawyers but also needs to ensure the lessons are learned
The lessons are never learnt sadly. That statement is rolled out every time by Govt no matter what colour. Sadly I have bitter experience of this as I help one of the campaigns who are going through just this.
Our experience is of a blocking civil service and Govt ministers who have no experience of their brief and change jobs before they do get that experience so invariably spout the civil service line without challenging it. And just to make clear that isn't just an opinion. I have a FOI response of hundreds of responses which demonstrates it. Every single ministerial reply in the FOI is backed up by an analysis from the civil service and a draft reply. There was not a single occasion when the minister asked questions of the analysis or the draft reply and always issued it word for word.
Indeed which is why we need more of a learning culture in government and a willingness to accept mistakes were made and learn from them rather than a cover up and denial of responsibility culture
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
Yes, please post that graph, I'd love to see it (and the underlying data that supports it).
Your facile comment is actually asking for a major research exercise which could only realistically be performed by HMRC which holds the key confidential tax data together with an outfit like the OBR which has access to a credible model of the economy with all relevant feedbacks incorporated
@Benpointer Here are some examples of the type of curves I alluded to. Trabandt and Uhlig, "The Laffer curve revisited", Journal of Monetary Economics, 2011 This paper also shows a number of actual Laffer curves for various taxes and various countries with tables and elasticity estimates. https://home.uchicago.edu/~huhlig/papers/uhlig.trabandt.jme.2011.pdf
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
Yes, please post that graph, I'd love to see it (and the underlying data that supports it).
Your facile comment is actually asking for a major research exercise which could only realistically be performed by HMRC which holds the key confidential tax data together with an outfit like the OBR which has access to a credible model of the economy with all relevant feedbacks incorporated...
...which would then be entirely dependent on the accuracy of the model and would be attacked on those grounds five seconds after publication.
I wonder if tracking income vs tax rate for each country over time would be adequate?
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
That would be stupidly complicated.
Switch the triple lock from State Pension to Pension Credit (it's currently just inflation-linked) would be better and achieve the same result.
Pension credits should be stopped.
With auto enrolment of pensions everyone should now be building their own pension pot.
That rather fails on timeline, since the Pension Credit is a gap-covering benefit for poor pensioners, whilst "building a pension" pot will not impact on people's need to receive pension credit until about 2060.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Which is gibberish.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
No, just ensure the triple lock increase only goes to those still getting their WFA
Labour won't cut welfare New Zealand style as Labour MPs have made clear they would veto it. Labour won't cut pensions either Greece style as they had to even reverse most of their winter fuel cuts due to backbencher and voter pressure.
So what Reeves will do is likely increase tax on expensive homes, increase capital gains tax and freeze income tax rates which at a time of rising unemployment and sluggish growth will just mainly depress the economy further. Howe and Osborne at least had significant spending cuts alongside some tax rises and even Healey had some spending cuts alongside significant tax rises when previous chancellors tried to balance the deficit
I agree with you about what Reeves won't cut but there's no magic formula that says tax rises depress the economy while spending cuts boost it. Quite the opposite in fact given the effects Howe and Osborne had on growth.
The economy grew faster in 2015 than 2010 and by the late 1980s the UK was also growing strongly having balanced the books
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
You really are a misanthrope.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Why deny the poor the joy of being a parent.
So we pay for the IVF, then give them handouts because they cant afford to look after their children. Wonderful.
Those using IVF are more likely to be middle class professionals as they are more likely to have children in their mid to late 30s or early 40s than working class parents who tend to have them in their twenties or early 30s or sometimes even their teens.
The 2 child benefit cap ended benefits working class parents most, especially those on low incomes or unemployed, funded IVF boosts middle class parents most
Except it didn’t work - I know plenty of benefit families with 3 or more children (hey how do you keep family benefits as they turn 16/18).
And there is a second issue with blended families where 2 families combine and suddenly you have 3-4 children when previously it was 2 lots of 2.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
A cogent, well-constructed Header as usual from Gareth, although slightly despoiled by the inclusion of the (having a) Laffer Curve. But we argued that point on here very recently so all good. Going forward I'd like to propose renaming it the Tax Trade Off Principle - TTOP. It says the following:
"In a free society there comes a point where increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. It will be different for each tax and will vary with time and circumstances. And nobody knows where it is."
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
Wider than that. They could sack women when the employees fell pregnant, and exclude people of certain races from being considered for promotion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
How effective are they is a question worth asking. Because the evidence from some of the people in these jobs in actual court cases show that they don't have the first clue about the law and are part of the problem rather than problem solvers.
(Oh and another word for "trans inclusive spaces" is mixed sex. We've had them for years.)
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
Wider than that. They could sack women when the employees fell pregnant, and exclude people of certain races from being considered for promotion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
How effective are they is a question worth asking. Because the evidence from some of the people in these jobs in actual court cases show that they don't have the first clue about the law and are part of the problem rather than problem solvers.
(Oh and another word for "trans inclusive spaces" is mixed sex. We've had them for years.)
Sure, but you're perhaps forgetting that you've encountered a statistically biased sample. It's the one who *prevent* court cases that you won't have encountered in court.
On the wider issue of HR and Trans, that is only part of DEI and HR work. Currently very topical and problematical - absolutely - but there is a lot more to HR and DEI than that. So the spin on that 500 figure seems doubly wrong to me.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Switzerland not in the EU or even the EEA or a customs union though, only EFTA.
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
Switzeraland has the closest relationship to the EU of any country not in the EEA, and a much closer relationship than us.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
Switzerland is the only western European nation with a population over 1 million not in the EU, not in the EEA and not in a customs union other than the UK.
Switzerland also has a lower population density than the UK still and the Swiss make it difficult for low skilled migrants to get a work permit
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Which is gibberish.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
No, just ensure the triple lock increase only goes to those still getting their WFA
But then you'd soon be going round in circles, wouldn't you? People would soon be getting less in total for not having WFA.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
I would bring in their requirements for obtaining Swiss nationality:
are integrated into Swiss society; (you have the ability to communicate in a national language in everyday situations, both orally and in writing, article 6 SCO); are accustomed to the Swiss lifestyle and Swiss customs (article 2 SCO); show respect for public security and order (clear criminal record both in Switzerland and abroad, no debt enforcement or insolvency proceedings in the last five years, no wages withheld, all taxes, child maintenance, rent, social charges and fines paid and you have not publicly expressed support for a crime against public order, a genocide, a crime against humanity, etc., article 4 SCO); show respect for the values of the Constitution (fundamental rights, gender equality, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, military service, democracy, principle of compulsory schooling, liability to taxation, etc., article 5 SCO); are contributing to the country’s economy or completing your education (in employment or education, not reliant on welfare benefits, article 7 SCO); do not pose a threat to Switzerland’s internal or external security (terrorism, violent extremism, organised crime, espionage, etc., article 3 SCO); encourage and support the integration of your spouse, your registered partner and your children under 18 for whom you hold parental responsibility (article 8 SCO).
Certain requirements would have made a huge difference to society over the last 50 plus years:
As regards familiarisation with the Swiss lifestyle, the authorities will look particularly closely at whether you have a knowledge of Swiss geography, history, politics (civil rights, political structure, legal system, etc.), society (Swiss traditions, social security, health, education, etc.), and whether you take an active part in the social life and customs of the Swiss population and are in contact with Swiss people (article 2 SCO).
Under article 7 SCO, as an applicant for Swiss nationality you must be capable of supporting yourself and your family (housing, food, taxes, travel, insurance etc.) as far as you can predict, via an income, your wealth or payments such as pensions to which you are entitled. So, in principle, as a candidate for Swiss nationality, you are required to be making an effective and active contribution to the country’s economy. You are expected to be active on a professional level, which means undertaking a job of work producing goods or services in order to earn an income to support yourself and your family.
Some communes are allowed a vote to decide if you pass those tests which isn’t a bad idea either. If you want to become a Swiss national you truly have to buy in to the country you want to be a national of which makes it more palatable for the Swiss to accept outsiders into their country which is absolutely fair.
I lived in Basel for 15 years, where there's a high rate of foreign-born people, I'd guess comparable to London. It works fairly well though society does change gradually in front of your eyes, and as in Britain there are people who just can't tolerate that easily.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Which is gibberish.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
No, just ensure the triple lock increase only goes to those still getting their WFA
But then you'd soon be going round in circles, wouldn't you? People would soon be getting less in total for not having WFA.
As they have enough savings and income not to need WFA so don't need a triple locked state pension rise either
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
You really are a misanthrope.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Why deny the poor the joy of being a parent.
So we pay for the IVF, then give them handouts because they cant afford to look after their children. Wonderful.
Those using IVF are more likely to be middle class professionals as they are more likely to have children in their mid to late 30s or early 40s than working class parents who tend to have them in their twenties or early 30s or sometimes even their teens.
The 2 child benefit cap ended benefits working class parents most, especially those on low incomes or unemployed, funded IVF boosts middle class parents most
Except it didn’t work - I know plenty of benefit families with 3 or more children (hey how do you keep family benefits as they turn 16/18).
And there is a second issue with blended families where 2 families combine and suddenly you have 3-4 children when previously it was 2 lots of 2.
Hence the 2 child benefit cap was introduced. Blended families are different as still two sets of parents with 2 children just step parents now too
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
No as that costs economic growth with that higher income tax
Something for everyone in tomorrow's local by-elections. The defences are Ind elected as Lab in Cheshire East; Ind in Dumfries and Galloway; Con in East Sussex; Lab in Redcar and Cleveland; Green in Trafford; and both LD and Con in Stratford on Avon,
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Which is gibberish.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
No, just ensure the triple lock increase only goes to those still getting their WFA
But then you'd soon be going round in circles, wouldn't you? People would soon be getting less in total for not having WFA.
As they have enough savings and income not to need WFA so don't need a triple locked state pension rise either
Not all, sure, but certainly those near the boundary, which is the area of focus when one talks about means testing. You keep giving one lot WFA and Triple Lock, but not the ones just above, and look what happens.
Reform may not have peaked but a cursory look at the trendlines makes it hard to deny they're on some kind of plateau. Very little change in their voteshare since May.
'Ahead of International Men’s Day @Moreincommon_ has new research into a cohort of disillusioned men who have lost faith in the social contract & the idea that hard work will support a good life, don’t think politics respect them & who are turning away from mainstream politics.The research suggests at around one in eight men are deeply disillusioned using this index, they are most likely to be middle aged, and less likely to live in London or to have gone to university..his group of often describe themselves as struggling financially, which also feeds a zero-sum view among some that others are getting ahead as they struggle. Disillusioned men are more likely than average to think progress for women has come at the expense of men..They overwhelmingly blame politicians for the problems that the country is facing, but also migration and the wealthy and big business. They are far more likely than average to say multiculturalism threatens rather than benefits society..Their frustration at the mainstream to deliver the things which will allow them to lead a good life is driving them away from traditional parties. Half of disillusioned men would now vote for Reform UK - and in a sign their distrust isn’t necessarily irreversible a similar number say a Reform win would make them hopeful.'
The Online Safety Act is awesome, not only does it protect our kids from filth, even better it enriches lawyers, what’s not to love?
Ofcom declares ‘sovereign immunity’ in free speech battle with US website
UK regulator has been sued by online message board 4chan over its enforcement of the Online Safety Act
Ofcom has claimed it has “sovereign immunity” as it seeks to fend off a US free speech lawsuit from the website 4chan.
Lawyers for the regulator told a US court that there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the lawsuit.
4chan, a notorious online message board, has sued Ofcom in the US, claiming that the regulator’s enforcement of the Online Safety Act contravenes American laws, including the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
It comes after Ofcom investigated the company under the Act and fined the company £20,000, which it has refused to pay.
In a notice filed to a federal court in Washington, its first response to the lawsuit, the regulator said: Ofcom is a UK public regulatory authority and has substantial grounds for seeking dismissal of this lawsuit based on sovereign immunity.”
The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields foreign governments from lawsuits in the US.
4chan’s lawsuit argues that Ofcom operates as a “commercial enterprise” and thus should not benefit from sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity has been used to dismiss lawsuits against Saudi Arabia by the families of 9/11 victims, and against Germany by the heirs of Holocaust survivors.
In a separate decision notice published on Tuesday, Ofcom said it does not accept 4chan’s argument that it is protected by the First Amendment. It also suggested that the case could be invalid on other grounds, including Ofcom having no meaningful presence in the US.
Reform may not have peaked but a cursory look at the trendlines makes it hard to deny they're on some kind of plateau. Very little change in their voteshare since May.
The budget will be the killer. There's talk on here that it will cause Reform to surge to 45%.
Something for everyone in tomorrow's local by-elections. The defences are Ind elected as Lab in Cheshire East; Ind in Dumfries and Galloway; Con in East Sussex; Lab in Redcar and Cleveland; Green in Trafford; and both LD and Con in Stratford on Avon,
The Green defence on Trafford is Hale, which is by any measure one of the top handful of most affluent wards in Greater Manchester. Greens have established a bit of a presence in Altrincham and Hale largely by getting out the Nimby vote - Greens were the most vocal in opposing the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (i.e. the local plan which allocated housing). (Not that Altrincham and Hale were particularly impacted by that.) Interesting to see whether this continues. It's not obvious far left territory - really, it's one of the few wards in GM which you'd think the Conservatives might hope to win. But clearly the Greens have mustered enough support to win here and the past and they're not fading away nationally.
The Cheshire east b/e, Macclesfield Central, is the sort of ward which in my youth was always Labour. There are few wards in the country which you can summarise so well by reference to popular music - but this is Macc Lads territory. I can't vouch for the local circumstances, but it feels exactly the sort of ward that Reform should be winning.
At the moment, the Overseas Aid budget is being used to provide fully paid for (overseas fees) university places for medical students from various countries.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
We wouldn’t get doctors trained to UK standards back though - and that’s the issue
Well we hardly have a shortage of Doctors, there are too many and they can’t get jobs. It’s one of the reasons for the strike.
Reform may not have peaked but a cursory look at the trendlines makes it hard to deny they're on some kind of plateau. Very little change in their voteshare since May.
The budget will be the killer. There's talk on here that it will cause Reform to surge to 45%.
Maybe. There was talk on here the Epping injunction verdict would do the same thing too.
Reform may not have peaked but a cursory look at the trendlines makes it hard to deny they're on some kind of plateau. Very little change in their voteshare since May.
The budget will be the killer. There's talk on here that it will cause Reform to surge to 45%.
My expectation is that if the budget is a disaster, the winners will be the Tories not Reform. And possibly the Greens. It will mean weeks when the main political story is the economy not immigration.
They were discussing this case this morning on R4 and it was mentioned that the compensation situation is a long and difficult process - I would love someone to explain why it’s a long and difficult process? If the courts have cleared someone who has been sent away wrongly surely there should be initial fixed payment for each day spent inside and then further payments for various elements - for example extra payments for being fitted up by the police rather than an error.
It should surely take a matter of a couple of weeks to do the documentation for the first part and enable the wrongly punished to get moving recovering their life where possible.
There is also absolutely no place for charging them for their rent and board during their sentence which I find one of the most bizarre rules in a mad world.
But that would involve giving people large amounts of money without generating large amounts of paperwork.
As the managers will tell you - this is Unprofessional.
Personally, I would fix this by
1) Give them the money - as you say, start with the per diem. The compensation for other stuff later 2) Find a copy of the telephone directory for Swanage, 1976. A bunch of copies. Get one of the companies that binds theses to bind it in hardback, with the title - “Report on the compensation for @boulay”. Distribute…
At the moment, the Overseas Aid budget is being used to provide fully paid for (overseas fees) university places for medical students from various countries.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
We wouldn’t get doctors trained to UK standards back though - and that’s the issue
Well we hardly have a shortage of Doctors, there are too many and they can’t get jobs. It’s one of the reasons for the strike.
We have a shortage of GPs *and* trained GPs who can’t get a job.
We have to use agency staff to fill gaps at vast expense. We need more medics.
As to qualifications - the NHS is full of doctors and nurses from abroad. The Philippines for example. If their qualifications are acceptable, why not send people to train there? (While we increase training capacity at home - but that is slow and expensive)
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
No as that costs economic growth with that higher income tax
But you get more growth from the lower income people*, and still more because there are no cliff edges [edit] of the kind about which people on about 60 to 100K on here complain all the time that they miught as well jack it in/skive off and retire.
*Who makes more money and produces useful growth in the UK? Baked bean manufacturers or Gucci shoe importers?
The Online Safety Act is awesome, not only does it protect our kids from filth, even better it enriches lawyers, what’s not to love?
Ofcom declares ‘sovereign immunity’ in free speech battle with US website
UK regulator has been sued by online message board 4chan over its enforcement of the Online Safety Act
Ofcom has claimed it has “sovereign immunity” as it seeks to fend off a US free speech lawsuit from the website 4chan.
Lawyers for the regulator told a US court that there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the lawsuit.
4chan, a notorious online message board, has sued Ofcom in the US, claiming that the regulator’s enforcement of the Online Safety Act contravenes American laws, including the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
It comes after Ofcom investigated the company under the Act and fined the company £20,000, which it has refused to pay.
In a notice filed to a federal court in Washington, its first response to the lawsuit, the regulator said: Ofcom is a UK public regulatory authority and has substantial grounds for seeking dismissal of this lawsuit based on sovereign immunity.”
The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields foreign governments from lawsuits in the US.
4chan’s lawsuit argues that Ofcom operates as a “commercial enterprise” and thus should not benefit from sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity has been used to dismiss lawsuits against Saudi Arabia by the families of 9/11 victims, and against Germany by the heirs of Holocaust survivors.
In a separate decision notice published on Tuesday, Ofcom said it does not accept 4chan’s argument that it is protected by the First Amendment. It also suggested that the case could be invalid on other grounds, including Ofcom having no meaningful presence in the US.
Surely the logical conclusion there is that OFCOM can’t enforce the fine in the US because of 1st Amendment protections, but also that 4Chan can’t sue OFCOM for damages or costs?
OFCOM then needs to decide whether or not to order ISPs to block 4Chan, and risk being on the receiving end of the wrath of a bunch of teenage hackers.
At the moment, the Overseas Aid budget is being used to provide fully paid for (overseas fees) university places for medical students from various countries.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
We wouldn’t get doctors trained to UK standards back though - and that’s the issue
Well we hardly have a shortage of Doctors, there are too many and they can’t get jobs. It’s one of the reasons for the strike.
We have a shortage of GPs *and* trained GPs who can’t get a job.
We have to use agency staff to fill gaps at vast expense. We need more medics.
As to qualifications - the NHS is full of doctors and nurses from abroad. The Philippines for example. If their qualifications are acceptable, why not send people to train there? (While we increase training capacity at home - but that is slow and expensive)
It’s probably easier at this point for the UK to sponsor thousands of medical students to study in Manila and Mumbai, whether British nationals or locals. We can certify their institutions to hand out British-recognised qualifications.
A cogent, well-constructed Header as usual from Gareth, although slightly despoiled by the inclusion of the (having a) Laffer Curve. But we argued that point on here very recently so all good. Going forward I'd like to propose renaming it the Tax Trade Off Principle - TTOP. It says the following:
"In a free society there comes a point where increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. It will be different for each tax and will vary with time and circumstances. And nobody knows where it is."
All on board?
No. Lots of people "know" where it is. It is just that they disagree on the answer. Most if not quite all will be wrong.
'Maths Week England 2025 is underway, bringing numbers to life in classrooms, workplaces and communities across the country.
I’m incredibly proud that the charity @akshatamurty_official and I founded @richmondproj is supporting this year’s week of activity, helping people build confidence with the everyday numbers we all use from budgeting and bills to time and decision-making.
The Online Safety Act is awesome, not only does it protect our kids from filth, even better it enriches lawyers, what’s not to love?
Ofcom declares ‘sovereign immunity’ in free speech battle with US website
UK regulator has been sued by online message board 4chan over its enforcement of the Online Safety Act
Ofcom has claimed it has “sovereign immunity” as it seeks to fend off a US free speech lawsuit from the website 4chan.
Lawyers for the regulator told a US court that there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the lawsuit.
4chan, a notorious online message board, has sued Ofcom in the US, claiming that the regulator’s enforcement of the Online Safety Act contravenes American laws, including the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
It comes after Ofcom investigated the company under the Act and fined the company £20,000, which it has refused to pay.
In a notice filed to a federal court in Washington, its first response to the lawsuit, the regulator said: Ofcom is a UK public regulatory authority and has substantial grounds for seeking dismissal of this lawsuit based on sovereign immunity.”
The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields foreign governments from lawsuits in the US.
4chan’s lawsuit argues that Ofcom operates as a “commercial enterprise” and thus should not benefit from sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity has been used to dismiss lawsuits against Saudi Arabia by the families of 9/11 victims, and against Germany by the heirs of Holocaust survivors.
In a separate decision notice published on Tuesday, Ofcom said it does not accept 4chan’s argument that it is protected by the First Amendment. It also suggested that the case could be invalid on other grounds, including Ofcom having no meaningful presence in the US.
Surely the logical conclusion there is that OFCOM can’t enforce the fine in the US because of 1st Amendment protections, but also that 4Chan can’t sue OFCOM for damages or costs?
OFCOM then needs to decide whether or not to order ISPs to block 4Chan, and risk being on the receiving end of the wrath of a bunch of teenage hackers.
OFCOM appear to be claiming geoblocking isn't enough.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Which is gibberish.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
No, just ensure the triple lock increase only goes to those still getting their WFA
But then you'd soon be going round in circles, wouldn't you? People would soon be getting less in total for not having WFA.
As they have enough savings and income not to need WFA so don't need a triple locked state pension rise either
Not all, sure, but certainly those near the boundary, which is the area of focus when one talks about means testing. You keep giving one lot WFA and Triple Lock, but not the ones just above, and look what happens.
Oh come on, we clearly don't have enough cliff edges at the moment do we? Let's create lots more. Let's make the tax and benefits system even more silly.
A cogent, well-constructed Header as usual from Gareth, although slightly despoiled by the inclusion of the (having a) Laffer Curve. But we argued that point on here very recently so all good. Going forward I'd like to propose renaming it the Tax Trade Off Principle - TTOP. It says the following:
"In a free society there comes a point where increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. It will be different for each tax and will vary with time and circumstances. And nobody knows where it is."
All on board?
No. Lots of people "know" where it is. It is just that they disagree on the answer. Most if not quite all will be wrong.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
Yes, means testing is a really crap way to administer benefits. It's intrusive, bureaucratic and often unfair. Your suggestion of universal benefits offest by higher income tax makes far more sense but is a hard sell politically to both left (why should higher earners get benefits?) and right (why should people get benefits for nothing?) due to the inability of people to see the wood for the trees.
Rather an ironic reference to the well known Rod Stewart lyrics.
The first cut is the deepest Baby, I know, the first cut is the deepest When it come to being lucky, she's cursed When it come to PSBR, she's the worst
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Which is gibberish.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
No, just ensure the triple lock increase only goes to those still getting their WFA
But then you'd soon be going round in circles, wouldn't you? People would soon be getting less in total for not having WFA.
As they have enough savings and income not to need WFA so don't need a triple locked state pension rise either
Not all, sure, but certainly those near the boundary, which is the area of focus when one talks about means testing. You keep giving one lot WFA and Triple Lock, but not the ones just above, and look what happens.
Oh come on, we clearly don't have enough cliff edges at the moment do we? Let's create lots more. Let's make the tax and benefits system even more silly.
Something like the basalt-flow landscape of the Inner Hebrides might be the ideal, a mischievous PBer might suggest ...
I could never understand why the stamp duty for houses had such enormous cliff edges for years but could be suddenly modified when the SNP took over in Scotland and produced the local version which was markedly more graduated.
A cogent, well-constructed Header as usual from Gareth, although slightly despoiled by the inclusion of the (having a) Laffer Curve. But we argued that point on here very recently so all good. Going forward I'd like to propose renaming it the Tax Trade Off Principle - TTOP. It says the following:
"In a free society there comes a point where increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. It will be different for each tax and will vary with time and circumstances. And nobody knows where it is."
All on board?
No. Lots of people "know" where it is. It is just that they disagree on the answer. Most if not quite all will be wrong.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
No as that costs economic growth with that higher income tax
Just been walking around Medica in Dusseldorf which is the world's largest trade show for the medtech industry. The UK used to have around 10% of the exhibitors 20 years ago and was a major player. It is now more like 2 to 3% and if the UK didn't turn up no-one would really notice. The UK is a minor country and the idea that we can strong arm the global super rich to bail us out is a joke. Our tax and benefit system must focus on the plan to rebuild the country not on virtue signalling.
In Scotland they put up top rates of income tax and the reality is that instead of £1.5bn they raised £600m. That is 60% of the targeted tax base disappeared. Hitting employment when we are in the largest job recession for decades is also insanity.
So agree extend VAT. Add new bands of council tax at the top. Enforce the alternative sales tax on all foreign companies that avoid UK taxes. Increase import duties. Tax all benefits no exception including free bus passes. Tighten up repayment of student loans especially those moving overseas. Dont write off debt if possible collect from estates if necessary. Charge banks for depositing money with BOE. Get rid of tax on share transactions and inheritance tax fully.
On savings. Eliminate London waiting. Eliminate mobility payments. Incentivise taxpayers to opt out of state provision of healthcare and education to save money. Cut largesse across the board. Cap PIP total payments and adjust rates based on demand. If demand increases rates fall and so demand will reduce. Get rid of triple lock and use rate of rise in earnings. Cap total value of any public sector pension no exceptions. No public servant should retire on more than twice average earnings.
Reform may not have peaked but a cursory look at the trendlines makes it hard to deny they're on some kind of plateau. Very little change in their voteshare since May.
The budget will be the killer. There's talk on here that it will cause Reform to surge to 45%.
My expectation is that if the budget is a disaster, the winners will be the Tories not Reform. And possibly the Greens. It will mean weeks when the main political story is the economy not immigration.
The Tories are just completely and utterly not dead.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
The problem is every time there is a scandal a public inquiry is demanded. Which means lots of money for lawyers but also needs to ensure the lessons are learned
The lessons are never learnt sadly. That statement is rolled out every time by Govt no matter what colour. Sadly I have bitter experience of this as I help one of the campaigns who are going through just this.
Our experience is of a blocking civil service and Govt ministers who have no experience of their brief and change jobs before they do get that experience so invariably spout the civil service line without challenging it. And just to make clear that isn't just an opinion. I have a FOI response of hundreds of responses which demonstrates it. Every single ministerial reply in the FOI is backed up by an analysis from the civil service and a draft reply. There was not a single occasion when the minister asked questions of the analysis or the draft reply and always issued it word for word.
Indeed which is why we need more of a learning culture in government and a willingness to accept mistakes were made and learn from them rather than a cover up and denial of responsibility culture
How though? It never changes. I hate to admit this, but Reform's policy on appointment of ministers with specific skills makes some sense, although it does make accountability even more important. And really the stubbornness of the civil service needs to be addressed. From my experience they will work exceptionally hard to avoid doing something. In fact often much harder than actually doing what they should have done in the first place.
Rather an ironic reference to the well known Rod Stewart lyrics.
The first cut is the deepest Baby, I know, the first cut is the deepest When it come to being lucky, she's cursed When it come to PSBR, she's the worst
At the moment, the Overseas Aid budget is being used to provide fully paid for (overseas fees) university places for medical students from various countries.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
We wouldn’t get doctors trained to UK standards back though - and that’s the issue
Well we hardly have a shortage of Doctors, there are too many and they can’t get jobs. It’s one of the reasons for the strike.
We have a shortage of GPs *and* trained GPs who can’t get a job.
We have to use agency staff to fill gaps at vast expense. We need more medics.
As to qualifications - the NHS is full of doctors and nurses from abroad. The Philippines for example. If their qualifications are acceptable, why not send people to train there? (While we increase training capacity at home - but that is slow and expensive)
A doctor coming from the Philippines is required to pass the PLAB test to demonstrate competence and an understanding of the UK system. We don't just accept their qualifications.
The Online Safety Act is awesome, not only does it protect our kids from filth, even better it enriches lawyers, what’s not to love?
Ofcom declares ‘sovereign immunity’ in free speech battle with US website
UK regulator has been sued by online message board 4chan over its enforcement of the Online Safety Act
Ofcom has claimed it has “sovereign immunity” as it seeks to fend off a US free speech lawsuit from the website 4chan.
Lawyers for the regulator told a US court that there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the lawsuit.
4chan, a notorious online message board, has sued Ofcom in the US, claiming that the regulator’s enforcement of the Online Safety Act contravenes American laws, including the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
It comes after Ofcom investigated the company under the Act and fined the company £20,000, which it has refused to pay.
In a notice filed to a federal court in Washington, its first response to the lawsuit, the regulator said: Ofcom is a UK public regulatory authority and has substantial grounds for seeking dismissal of this lawsuit based on sovereign immunity.”
The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields foreign governments from lawsuits in the US.
4chan’s lawsuit argues that Ofcom operates as a “commercial enterprise” and thus should not benefit from sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity has been used to dismiss lawsuits against Saudi Arabia by the families of 9/11 victims, and against Germany by the heirs of Holocaust survivors.
In a separate decision notice published on Tuesday, Ofcom said it does not accept 4chan’s argument that it is protected by the First Amendment. It also suggested that the case could be invalid on other grounds, including Ofcom having no meaningful presence in the US.
Surely the logical conclusion there is that OFCOM can’t enforce the fine in the US because of 1st Amendment protections, but also that 4Chan can’t sue OFCOM for damages or costs?
OFCOM then needs to decide whether or not to order ISPs to block 4Chan, and risk being on the receiving end of the wrath of a bunch of teenage hackers.
OFCOM appear to be claiming geoblocking isn't enough.
A cogent, well-constructed Header as usual from Gareth, although slightly despoiled by the inclusion of the (having a) Laffer Curve. But we argued that point on here very recently so all good. Going forward I'd like to propose renaming it the Tax Trade Off Principle - TTOP. It says the following:
"In a free society there comes a point where increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. It will be different for each tax and will vary with time and circumstances. And nobody knows where it is."
All on board?
No. Lots of people "know" where it is. It is just that they disagree on the answer. Most if not quite all will be wrong.
🙂 yes.
For me - right now - it's 65%.
I think we can be pretty sure of the reverse Laffer effect, then, where individual tax rates are applied on the basis of each taxpayer's personal declared estimate of the Laffer maximum.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
No as that costs economic growth with that higher income tax
Just been walking around Medica in Dusseldorf which is the world's largest trade show for the medtech industry. The UK used to have around 10% of the exhibitors 20 years ago and was a major player. It is now more like 2 to 3% and if the UK didn't turn up no-one would really notice. The UK is a minor country and the idea that we can strong arm the global super rich to bail us out is a joke. Our tax and benefit system must focus on the plan to rebuild the country not on virtue signalling.
In Scotland they put up top rates of income tax and the reality is that instead of £1.5bn they raised £600m. That is 60% of the targeted tax base disappeared. Hitting employment when we are in the largest job recession for decades is also insanity.
So agree extend VAT. Add new bands of council tax at the top. Enforce the alternative sales tax on all foreign companies that avoid UK taxes. Increase import duties. Tax all benefits no exception including free bus passes. Tighten up repayment of student loans especially those moving overseas. Dont write off debt if possible collect from estates if necessary. Charge banks for depositing money with BOE. Get rid of tax on share transactions and inheritance tax fully.
On savings. Eliminate London weighting. Eliminate mobility payments. Incentivise taxpayers to opt out of state provision of healthcare and education to save money. Cut largesse across the board. Cap PIP total payments and adjust rates based on demand. If demand increases rates fall and so demand will reduce. Get rid of triple lock and use rate of rise in earnings. Cap total value of any public sector pension no exceptions. No public servant should retire on more than twice average earnings.
I don't go along with all of the detail, but I could not have bettered you first para if I wrote it myself.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
Yes, means testing is a really crap way to administer benefits. It's intrusive, bureaucratic and often unfair. Your suggestion of universal benefits offest by higher income tax makes far more sense but is a hard sell politically to both left (why should higher earners get benefits?) and right (why should people get benefits for nothing?) due to the inability of people to see the wood for the trees.
OTOH the prescription system in Scotland was massively simplified when the SG realised that much of the bureaucracy was focussed on the paying minority of users - the majority tended to be old with multiple needs or officially incapacitated ie in ill health. Eliminating means testing very nearly paid for itself in itself. And everyone gets some comeback for their tax. Don't know if the Scots are just more sensible, or if it was a matter of fresh faces.
The bus fares card is different - more focussed on the elderly but partly because it helps them out and about and so is very important for their mental and physical health. And the well off get it too to save on admin but also to stop them complaining. All of which helps to keep bus services going.
'Ahead of International Men’s Day @Moreincommon_ has new research into a cohort of disillusioned men who have lost faith in the social contract & the idea that hard work will support a good life, don’t think politics respect them & who are turning away from mainstream politics.The research suggests at around one in eight men are deeply disillusioned using this index, they are most likely to be middle aged, and less likely to live in London or to have gone to university..his group of often describe themselves as struggling financially, which also feeds a zero-sum view among some that others are getting ahead as they struggle. Disillusioned men are more likely than average to think progress for women has come at the expense of men..They overwhelmingly blame politicians for the problems that the country is facing, but also migration and the wealthy and big business. They are far more likely than average to say multiculturalism threatens rather than benefits society..Their frustration at the mainstream to deliver the things which will allow them to lead a good life is driving them away from traditional parties. Half of disillusioned men would now vote for Reform UK - and in a sign their distrust isn’t necessarily irreversible a similar number say a Reform win would make them hopeful.'
The research suggests at around one in eight men are deeply disillusioned using this index, they are most likely to be middle aged, less likely to live in London, and more likely to post on the PoliticalBetting.com forum...?
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
Yes, means testing is a really crap way to administer benefits. It's intrusive, bureaucratic and often unfair. Your suggestion of universal benefits offest by higher income tax makes far more sense but is a hard sell politically to both left (why should higher earners get benefits?) and right (why should people get benefits for nothing?) due to the inability of people to see the wood for the trees.
OTOH the prescription system in Scotland was massively simplified when the SG realised that much of the bureaucracy was focussed on the paying minority of users - the majority tended to be old with multiple needs or officially incapacitated ie in ill health. Eliminating means testing very nearly paid for itself in itself. And everyone gets some comeback for their tax. Don't know if the Scots are just more sensible, or if it was a matter of fresh faces.
The bus fares card is different - more focussed on the elderly but partly because it helps them out and about and so is very important for their mental and physical health. And the well off get it too to save on admin but also to stop them complaining. All of which helps to keep bus services going.
I think only 10% of prescriptions in England are not covered by an exemption.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
No as that costs economic growth with that higher income tax
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
No as that costs economic growth with that higher income tax
Just been walking around Medica in Dusseldorf which is the world's largest trade show for the medtech industry. The UK used to have around 10% of the exhibitors 20 years ago and was a major player. It is now more like 2 to 3% and if the UK didn't turn up no-one would really notice. The UK is a minor country and the idea that we can strong arm the global super rich to bail us out is a joke. Our tax and benefit system must focus on the plan to rebuild the country not on virtue signalling.
In Scotland they put up top rates of income tax and the reality is that instead of £1.5bn they raised £600m. That is 60% of the targeted tax base disappeared. Hitting employment when we are in the largest job recession for decades is also insanity.
So agree extend VAT. Add new bands of council tax at the top. Enforce the alternative sales tax on all foreign companies that avoid UK taxes. Increase import duties. Tax all benefits no exception including free bus passes. Tighten up repayment of student loans especially those moving overseas. Dont write off debt if possible collect from estates if necessary. Charge banks for depositing money with BOE. Get rid of tax on share transactions and inheritance tax fully.
On savings. Eliminate London waiting. Eliminate mobility payments. Incentivise taxpayers to opt out of state provision of healthcare and education to save money. Cut largesse across the board. Cap PIP total payments and adjust rates based on demand. If demand increases rates fall and so demand will reduce. Get rid of triple lock and use rate of rise in earnings. Cap total value of any public sector pension no exceptions. No public servant should retire on more than twice average earnings.
As someone who has published research on the experience of medtech innovators, I would say the biggest reason for the change noted is Brexit. We had access to a larger market and one regulatory journey, but now you have a different regulatory journey for GB and for EEA+NI.
I'd say the next biggest reason is that healthcare budgets have been squeezed, so it's harder to sell medtech to the NHS.
A cogent, well-constructed Header as usual from Gareth, although slightly despoiled by the inclusion of the (having a) Laffer Curve. But we argued that point on here very recently so all good. Going forward I'd like to propose renaming it the Tax Trade Off Principle - TTOP. It says the following:
"In a free society there comes a point where increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. It will be different for each tax and will vary with time and circumstances. And nobody knows where it is."
All on board?
No. Lots of people "know" where it is. It is just that they disagree on the answer. Most if not quite all will be wrong.
🙂 yes.
For me - right now - it's 65%.
I think we can be pretty sure of the reverse Laffer effect, then, where individual tax rates are applied on the basis of each taxpayer's personal declared estimate of the Laffer maximum.
For me, it is 50%. When we get beyond the point when the State is making as much as me out of my extra work to where it is getting more I think that causes changes in behaviour which are adverse. So, we see, for example, doctors cutting the number of days, they work, we have seen salary sacrifice policies which the Chancellor now wants to attack, people reluctant to accept promotions to more demanding posts etc. All of these result in the tax take and indeed the economic activity being less than optimal. Of course in the kill zone of £100-120K I am already paying comfortably more than that.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Means testing benefits just creates unfair cliff edges all over the place. It is much simpler and less costly to administer to have universal benefits and recover the extra money spent by higher income tax rates for those paying more than the basic rate of income tax.
No as that costs economic growth with that higher income tax
Yet you have no issue with the 55% taper on UC?
Which has a much greater impact than the same money given to people on 100k. The latter often spend it on imported luxuries, go on cruises, etc. The former, in Tescos.
'Ahead of International Men’s Day @Moreincommon_ has new research into a cohort of disillusioned men who have lost faith in the social contract & the idea that hard work will support a good life, don’t think politics respect them & who are turning away from mainstream politics.The research suggests at around one in eight men are deeply disillusioned using this index, they are most likely to be middle aged, and less likely to live in London or to have gone to university..his group of often describe themselves as struggling financially, which also feeds a zero-sum view among some that others are getting ahead as they struggle. Disillusioned men are more likely than average to think progress for women has come at the expense of men..They overwhelmingly blame politicians for the problems that the country is facing, but also migration and the wealthy and big business. They are far more likely than average to say multiculturalism threatens rather than benefits society..Their frustration at the mainstream to deliver the things which will allow them to lead a good life is driving them away from traditional parties. Half of disillusioned men would now vote for Reform UK - and in a sign their distrust isn’t necessarily irreversible a similar number say a Reform win would make them hopeful.'
'Ahead of International Men’s Day @Moreincommon_ has new research into a cohort of disillusioned men who have lost faith in the social contract & the idea that hard work will support a good life, don’t think politics respect them & who are turning away from mainstream politics.The research suggests at around one in eight men are deeply disillusioned using this index, they are most likely to be middle aged, and less likely to live in London or to have gone to university..his group of often describe themselves as struggling financially, which also feeds a zero-sum view among some that others are getting ahead as they struggle. Disillusioned men are more likely than average to think progress for women has come at the expense of men..They overwhelmingly blame politicians for the problems that the country is facing, but also migration and the wealthy and big business. They are far more likely than average to say multiculturalism threatens rather than benefits society..Their frustration at the mainstream to deliver the things which will allow them to lead a good life is driving them away from traditional parties. Half of disillusioned men would now vote for Reform UK - and in a sign their distrust isn’t necessarily irreversible a similar number say a Reform win would make them hopeful.'
So looking for just about any scapegoat for their predicament. And another illusory magical solution to it.
The real lesson of such survey results is that governments have to offer hope - and at the very least partially deliver on it.
Otherwise the dice gets rolled on the next implausible idea offering the biggest payoff, however unlikely (see also Brexit).
The last, and this government failed, and are failing on both scores.
Is any of this new? There have always been people (often men) whose life has not lived up to their hopes and are looking for someone to blame. Not saying it's not bad luck for them of course or writing them off. What seems to be new is that we seem to have politicians more ready to pander to people's resentments ather than trying to make things work for this group and more importantly for everyone else.
At the moment, the Overseas Aid budget is being used to provide fully paid for (overseas fees) university places for medical students from various countries.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
We wouldn’t get doctors trained to UK standards back though - and that’s the issue
Well we hardly have a shortage of Doctors, there are too many and they can’t get jobs. It’s one of the reasons for the strike.
We have a shortage of GPs *and* trained GPs who can’t get a job.
We have to use agency staff to fill gaps at vast expense. We need more medics.
As to qualifications - the NHS is full of doctors and nurses from abroad. The Philippines for example. If their qualifications are acceptable, why not send people to train there? (While we increase training capacity at home - but that is slow and expensive)
My wife recruited from the Philippines. She used to got to Manila and Iloilo to recruit. They’re fantastic people. Hard working and integrate well. They produce more Doctors and Nurses than they need as they are happy for them to go abroad. Why send people there to train when they train plenty anyway with a view to them emigrating ?
They aren’t coming over to deliver takeaways driving Sur-Ron’s around
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd04x43vg1ko
Next you will be telling us that water is wet.
I wonder if tracking income vs tax rate for each country over time would be adequate?
It should surely take a matter of a couple of weeks to do the documentation for the first part and enable the wrongly punished to get moving recovering their life where possible.
There is also absolutely no place for charging them for their rent and board during their sentence which I find one of the most bizarre rules in a mad world.
About 3/4 of IVF procedures in the UK are funded privately and only about 1/4 are funded by the NHS. Again, plenty of the NHS funded activity is done in independent clinics rather than in hospitals.
So, a picture of "one end of the gyno department doing abortions while the other end does IVF" suggests a lack of understanding of reproductive healthcare services in the country. Also, as someone else said, these are different people. Some people in healthcare are being told to rest, go to bed, while others are being told to get up and move around. That is not a contradiction: different people at different points in their lives have different needs.
The 2 child benefit cap ended benefits working class parents most, especially those on low incomes or unemployed, funded IVF boosts middle class parents most
Trabandt and Uhlig, "The Laffer curve revisited", Journal of Monetary Economics, 2011
This paper also shows a number of actual Laffer curves for various taxes and various countries with tables and elasticity estimates.
https://home.uchicago.edu/~huhlig/papers/uhlig.trabandt.jme.2011.pdf
(Unless you mean something else?)
Switzerland also bans the face covering burka so is not that liberal on immigration issues
And there is a second issue with blended families where 2 families combine and suddenly you have 3-4 children when previously it was 2 lots of 2.
Ed Exley: You're wrong, sir.
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to plant corroborative evidence on a suspect you knew to be guilty, in order to ensure an indictment?
Ed Exley: Dudley, we've been over this.
Captain Dudley Smith: Yes or no, Edmund?
Ed Exley: No!
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to beat a confession out of a suspect you knew to be guilty?
Ed Exley: No.
Captain Dudley Smith: Would you be willing to shoot a hardened criminal in the back, in order to offset the chance that some... lawyer...
Ed Exley: No.
Captain Dudley Smith: Then, for the love of God, don't be a detective.
I think over a quarter of the Swiss population are immigrants, much higher than in the UK.
"In a free society there comes a point where increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. It will be different for each tax and will vary with time and circumstances. And nobody knows where it is."
All on board?
On the wider issue of HR and Trans, that is only part of DEI and HR work. Currently very topical and problematical - absolutely - but there is a lot more to HR and DEI than that. So the spin on that 500 figure seems doubly wrong to me.
Switzerland also has a lower population density than the UK still and the Swiss make it difficult for low skilled migrants to get a work permit
Get Out The Vale!!!
@Moreincommon_
has new research into a cohort of disillusioned men who have lost faith in the social contract & the idea that hard work will support a good life, don’t think politics respect them & who are turning away from mainstream politics.The research suggests at around one in eight men are deeply disillusioned using this index, they are most likely to be middle aged, and less likely to live in London or to have gone to university..his group of often describe themselves as struggling financially, which also feeds a zero-sum view among some that others are getting ahead as they struggle. Disillusioned men are more likely than average to think progress for women has come at the expense of men..They overwhelmingly blame politicians for the problems that the country is facing, but also migration and the wealthy and big business. They are far more likely than average to say multiculturalism threatens rather than benefits society..Their frustration at the mainstream to deliver the things which will allow them to lead a good life is driving them away from traditional parties. Half of disillusioned men would now vote for Reform UK - and in a sign their distrust isn’t necessarily irreversible a similar number say a Reform win would make them hopeful.'
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1990816409182417194?s=20
Ofcom declares ‘sovereign immunity’ in free speech battle with US website
UK regulator has been sued by online message board 4chan over its enforcement of the Online Safety Act
Ofcom has claimed it has “sovereign immunity” as it seeks to fend off a US free speech lawsuit from the website 4chan.
Lawyers for the regulator told a US court that there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the lawsuit.
4chan, a notorious online message board, has sued Ofcom in the US, claiming that the regulator’s enforcement of the Online Safety Act contravenes American laws, including the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
It comes after Ofcom investigated the company under the Act and fined the company £20,000, which it has refused to pay.
In a notice filed to a federal court in Washington, its first response to the lawsuit, the regulator said: Ofcom is a UK public regulatory authority and has substantial grounds for seeking dismissal of this lawsuit based on sovereign immunity.”
The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields foreign governments from lawsuits in the US.
4chan’s lawsuit argues that Ofcom operates as a “commercial enterprise” and thus should not benefit from sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity has been used to dismiss lawsuits against Saudi Arabia by the families of 9/11 victims, and against Germany by the heirs of Holocaust survivors.
In a separate decision notice published on Tuesday, Ofcom said it does not accept 4chan’s argument that it is protected by the First Amendment. It also suggested that the case could be invalid on other grounds, including Ofcom having no meaningful presence in the US.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/19/ofcom-declares-sovereign-immunity-free-speech-battle-us/
The Cheshire east b/e, Macclesfield Central, is the sort of ward which in my youth was always Labour. There are few wards in the country which you can summarise so well by reference to popular music - but this is Macc Lads territory. I can't vouch for the local circumstances, but it feels exactly the sort of ward that Reform should be winning.
As the managers will tell you - this is Unprofessional.
Personally, I would fix this by
1) Give them the money - as you say, start with the per diem. The compensation for other stuff later
2) Find a copy of the telephone directory for Swanage, 1976. A bunch of copies. Get one of the companies that binds theses to bind it in hardback, with the title - “Report on the compensation for @boulay”. Distribute…
We have to use agency staff to fill gaps at vast expense. We need more medics.
As to qualifications - the NHS is full of doctors and nurses from abroad. The Philippines for example. If their qualifications are acceptable, why not send people to train there? (While we increase training capacity at home - but that is slow and expensive)
*Who makes more money and produces useful growth in the UK? Baked bean manufacturers or Gucci shoe importers?
OFCOM then needs to decide whether or not to order ISPs to block 4Chan, and risk being on the receiving end of the wrath of a bunch of teenage hackers.
I had my moment of unoriginal realisation a while back.
I’m incredibly proud that the charity @akshatamurty_official and I founded @richmondproj is supporting this year’s week of activity, helping people build confidence with the everyday numbers we all use from budgeting and bills to time and decision-making.
Confidence with numbers opens doors, and this week is all about helping more people feel it.'
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRO6YTRjdlF/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
The first cut won't hurt at all
The second only makes you wonder
The third will have you on your knees
You start bleeding I start screaming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnQ2zOmb6Hg
(The video is very '80s.)
https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/11/06/the-ofcom-files-part-2-ip-blocking-the-uk-is-not-enough-to-comply-with-the-online-safety-act/
Russia mapping out our undersea cables:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24028k7edo
"Russian spy ship on edge of UK waters uses lasers at RAF pilots, Healey says"
The first cut is the deepest
Baby, I know, the first cut is the deepest
When it come to being lucky, she's cursed
When it come to PSBR, she's the worst
That was the intention, yes, I agree.
I could never understand why the stamp duty for houses had such enormous cliff edges for years but could be suddenly modified when the SNP took over in Scotland and produced the local version which was markedly more graduated.
For me - right now - it's 65%.
Just been walking around Medica in Dusseldorf which is the world's largest trade show for the medtech industry. The UK used to have around 10% of the exhibitors 20 years ago and was a major player. It is now more like 2 to 3% and if the UK didn't turn up no-one would really notice. The UK is a minor country and the idea that we can strong arm the global super rich to bail us out is a joke. Our tax and benefit system must focus on the plan to rebuild the country not on virtue signalling.
In Scotland they put up top rates of income tax and the reality is that instead of £1.5bn they raised £600m. That is 60% of the targeted tax base disappeared. Hitting employment when we are in the largest job recession for decades is also insanity.
So agree extend VAT. Add new bands of council tax at the top. Enforce the alternative sales tax on all foreign companies that avoid UK taxes. Increase import duties. Tax all benefits no exception including free bus passes. Tighten up repayment of student loans especially those moving overseas. Dont write off debt if possible collect from estates if necessary. Charge banks for depositing money with BOE. Get rid of tax on share transactions and inheritance tax fully.
On savings. Eliminate London waiting. Eliminate mobility payments. Incentivise taxpayers to opt out of state provision of healthcare and education to save money. Cut largesse across the board. Cap PIP total payments and adjust rates based on demand. If demand increases rates fall and so demand will reduce. Get rid of triple lock and use rate of rise in earnings. Cap total value of any public sector pension no exceptions. No public servant should retire on more than twice average earnings.
Clive Lewis affirms he would give up his seat for Andy Burnham
Really
A large aviation exclusion zone going up around it.
https://x.com/flightradar24/status/1991108920098619752
Burnham would be up against a “man in a white suit”, in a two-horse race.
The bus fares card is different - more focussed on the elderly but partly because it helps them out and about and so is very important for their mental and physical health. And the well off get it too to save on admin but also to stop them complaining. All of which helps to keep bus services going.
Inevitably.
I'd say the next biggest reason is that healthcare budgets have been squeezed, so it's harder to sell medtech to the NHS.
North York Moors are the place for skis today:
https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/nycc_weather_cameras/cameras/12918?1763556861956
And another illusory magical solution to it.
The real lesson of such survey results is that governments have to offer hope - and at the very least partially deliver on it.
Otherwise the dice gets rolled on the next implausible idea offering the biggest payoff, however unlikely (see also Brexit).
The last, and this government failed, and are failing on both scores.
https://x.com/tendar/status/1991108558872817723
Meanwhile, 20 and counting civilians have been killed in the Ukranian town of Turnopil.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1991120745666142597
They aren’t coming over to deliver takeaways driving Sur-Ron’s around