Do you want to discuss boring politics? (19 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
So how will you beat that direction of travel if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...

Where to even start? To state the obvious, we need economic growth.

Two areas to focus on:

Energy. We have the most expensive energy in the western world and cutting the green levies and VAT on energy would be a good start to help ‘immediately’. Helps with household bills and helps businesses, particularly manufacturing. Finally, AI businesses required tons of energy which means cheap energy is the key to unlocking these growth industries.

Massive welfare reforms, having as many people as we do on sickness benefits is a major red flag. Particularly in the 18-24 age range who are predominantly claiming for mental health disorders. The welfare state as we know it cannot cope with this many young people being out of work. There are a few scenarios where the welfare state pays more than people who work. For obvious reasons, this is toxic for the economy and public finances.

My personal view is that the tax burden has reached the critical mass where any new taxes will have diminished returns. A pertinent example here has been the disastrous increase of ‘employers NI’ which has resulted in hours being cut, hiring freezes or even redundancies - particularly impacting young people. Payrolls in the private sector has sharply declined (minus 153k) since this ‘jobs tax’ was introduced but simultaneously the public sector has grown by 75k (or thereabouts).
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
My personal view is that the tax burden has reached the critical mass where any new taxes will have diminished returns. A pertinent example here has been the disastrous increase of ‘employers NI’ which has resulted in hours being cut, hiring freezes or even redundancies - particularly impacting young people. Payrolls in the private sector has sharply declined (minus 153k) since this ‘jobs tax’ was introduced but simultaneously the public sector has grown by 75k (or thereabouts).
Click to expand...
I agree that the employers NI contributions are the wrong policy to adopt, but I am not sure about your numbers. ONS data seems to show that private sector employment has a greater share of employment in 2025 than it did in 2024, i.e. it has grown quicker.

EMP02: Public and private sector employment - Office for National Statistics

Public and private sector employment, UK, published quarterly, seasonally adjusted.
www.ons.gov.uk
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
I agree that the employers NI contributions are the wrong policy to adopt, but I am not sure about your numbers. ONS data seems to show that private sector employment has a greater share of employment in 2025 than it did in 2024, i.e. it has grown quicker.

EMP02: Public and private sector employment - Office for National Statistics

Public and private sector employment, UK, published quarterly, seasonally adjusted.
www.ons.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Also, the ONS:

Earnings and employment from Pay As You Earn Real Time Information, UK - Office for National Statistics

Monthly estimates of payrolled employees and their pay from HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC’s) Pay As You Earn (PAYE) Real Time Information (RTI) data.
www.ons.gov.uk

The ONS is also being probed for its data quality and there a serious questions on it’s reliability as a statistics office.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Also, the ONS:

Earnings and employment from Pay As You Earn Real Time Information, UK - Office for National Statistics

Monthly estimates of payrolled employees and their pay from HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC’s) Pay As You Earn (PAYE) Real Time Information (RTI) data.
www.ons.gov.uk

The ONS is also being probed for its data quality and there a serious questions on it’s reliability as a statistics office.
Click to expand...
Just like the US then,?
Does this encompass the SE sector which has grown exponentially over a period of time?
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
rob9872 said:
Too soon for Labour policies to have affected we're told with negative stories, so assume this employment gain is thanks to 14 years of Tory government decisions.

You're welcome :)
Click to expand...

I believe there's a sudden vacancy for a new spin doctor at Number 10.

Assuming that you've been behaving yourself on social media for the last ten years or so, I think you'd be a good fit. 😁
 
rob9872

rob9872

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
I believe there's a sudden vacancy for a new spin doctor at Number 10.

Assuming that you've been behaving yourself on social media for the last ten years or so, I think you'd be a good fit. 😁
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I've not been a good boy on SM. I don't tweet often as I end up getting embroiled in trolling celebrities (only ever had 2 posts go viral and they were to David Baddiel and Ant McPartlin). My original account was blocked, so now I only follow Cov accounts really,

I was doing well but I've lapsed twice in the past week, once to Ed Balls (I suggested if his team hadn't wasted so much time he might have made the train that left early) but I didn't cover myself in glory today. A WBA fan posted the word "shithole" of her photo driving past the CBS. I went for the most basic trolling on her appearance and I'm not proud of my response.

For that reason I won't be applying :(
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
rob9872 said:
Too soon for Labour policies to have affected we're told with negative stories, so assume this employment gain is thanks to 14 years of Tory government decisions.

You're welcome :)
Click to expand...
No, the job vacancies and payrolls declining simultaneously is a direct impact of Labour’s policy.

Reform had a similar policy, albeit increased employers NI applied to non-UK workers only, and this was derided (rightly so imo) as a dumb policy.

It’s a job tax. It significantly increased operating costs for all businesses so the following things have happened:
- prices have increased to cover costs - hence inflation has raised
- businesses have cut jobs, hours, hiring freezes
- more so for SMEs, businesses have folded
- young people and lower income people impacted the most who will probably be more reliant on the welfare state either in work, or out of work
- silver lining: will accelerate automation (self-checkouts) but at the cost of phasing out a lot of low paying jobs e.g. retail roles

Seriously, raising employer’s NI was one of the dumbest policy decisions this government has taken. It’s hugely damaging economically and probably won’t raise the sums mooted upon introduction of the policy.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
rob9872 said:
I'm afraid I've not been a good boy on SM. I don't tweet often as I end up getting embroiled in trolling celebrities (only ever had 2 posts go viral and they were to David Baddiel and Ant McPartlin). My original account was blocked, so now I only follow Cov accounts really,

I was doing well but I've lapsed twice in the past week, once to Ed Balls (I suggested if his team hadn't wasted so much time he might have made the train that left early) but I didn't cover myself in glory today. A WBA fan posted the word "shithole" of her photo driving past the CBS. I went for the most basic trolling on her appearance and I'm not proud of my response.

For that reason I won't be applying :(
Click to expand...

Ah, you're only human. How about US ambassador, standards are a bit lower for that position. 😁
 
SkyBlueCharlie9

SkyBlueCharlie9

Well-Known Member
rob9872 said:
Just fuck off you race baiting c**t
Click to expand...
Nice language tossp0t. Touched a nerve there. I said one of the main reasons not just that and not everyone. The Consevative & Unionists that switched to Reform have been from the very right side of the party... the more racist extreme fruitcake side of the party.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueCharlie9 said:
In depth political analysis again Grenners.
Click to expand...

Well your comment was she is black so the right don't like her. The members are always more extreme and odlly voted her in against the very white, very right and very male Robert Jenrick.

I think you need to look at Labour Charles who really seem to have a problem with non whites and females leading the Party
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Well your comment was she is black so the right don't like her. The members are always more extreme and odlly voted her in against the very white, very right and very male Robert Jenrick.

I think you need to look at Labour Charles who really seem to have a problem with non whites and females leading the Party
Click to expand...
The Tories objectively have a better record on diversity than Labour and 'the left' can't stand it. In fact, the tory membership have backed two female candidates back-to-back...

Personally, I like Kemi, is a decent leader of the Tories and in ordinary times would probably poll v well. Right now, she's against a seemingly unstoppable force in Farage on the back of widespread anger against the 'uniparty' (Conservatives v Labour).
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Under the Tories in the 2010s, government spending still steadily increased. Likewise, Labour welfare ‘cuts’ was just slowing down the increase in spending. “Real austerity” would mean actually cutting government spending rather than stymying the spending increases.

If interest rates get past 7-8%, the economy will be in a lot of trouble. Particularly for homeowners and anyone with debt, which is a lot of people. Unfortunately, the rate of spending increases and gilts get more expensive, it’s a doom loop because the government needs to pay more to pay its interest, which increases borrowing further and the cycle repeats.

We’re already spending £100+ bn on debt interest alone.
Click to expand...
"Real austerity" would put the economy in massive trouble.

For a start that many people losing jobs means you've now got those people on benefits while not getting ta from their wages. Those people will also not have money to spend and so private businesses will contract, cutting further jobs resulting in more benefits/less tax in a vicious circle, as well as things like CT going down as their business suffers.

Then as those contract you end up with growth growing into reverse and the resultant recession causing our cost of borrowing to go up.

So have more need for welfare, less tax revenue and cost of borrowing going up. Sounds like a great plan.

And that's without even thinking about the human aspect of what those cuts would cause. What do you cut? Welfare? Well in that case crime goes up and so you need more from the police, courts and prisons. Only you've probably cut them too so places are almost like the wild west.

What about health? Cut it for physical health and you'll get even more people unfit to work and so reliant on welfare. Cut mental health provision and you're likely looking at increase in crime as people's conditions aren't being managed properly. We've already seen this in the past.

How about cutting handouts to large businesses to invest in the country? They already have a lot of money so why give them a handout? Because chances are they'll not invest in the country and you don't get the jobs?

It's all well and good saying make cuts but the impact and consequences of that would be absolutely massive. If anything it'd push the country close to civil war.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
The Tories objectively have a better record on diversity than Labour and 'the left' can't stand it. In fact, the tory membership have backed two female candidates back-to-back...

Personally, I like Kemi, is a decent leader of the Tories and in ordinary times would probably poll v well. Right now, she's against a seemingly unstoppable force in Farage on the back of widespread anger against the 'uniparty' (Conservatives v Labour).
Click to expand...

If you think the Tories have a better record on diversity than Labour just because they've had two female leaders, then you don't really understand what diversity is. Don't, whatever you do, Google Islamaphobia and the Tory party, for a start....

You're standing up for a party that fucked the country, with a leader that even her own side are struggling to support. You're good at pseudo intellectualism, but you've not made a great case here...

www.independent.co.uk

Tory MP openly criticises Kemi Badenoch and challenges her to suspend him

Prime minister Keir Starmer tells Conservative leader she will ‘never’ be PM
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
"Real austerity" would put the economy in massive trouble.

For a start that many people losing jobs means you've now got those people on benefits while not getting ta from their wages. Those people will also not have money to spend and so private businesses will contract, cutting further jobs resulting in more benefits/less tax in a vicious circle, as well as things like CT going down as their business suffers.

Then as those contract you end up with growth growing into reverse and the resultant recession causing our cost of borrowing to go up.

So have more need for welfare, less tax revenue and cost of borrowing going up. Sounds like a great plan.

And that's without even thinking about the human aspect of what those cuts would cause. What do you cut? Welfare? Well in that case crime goes up and so you need more from the police, courts and prisons. Only you've probably cut them too so places are almost like the wild west.

What about health? Cut it for physical health and you'll get even more people unfit to work and so reliant on welfare. Cut mental health provision and you're likely looking at increase in crime as people's conditions aren't being managed properly. We've already seen this in the past.

How about cutting handouts to large businesses to invest in the country? They already have a lot of money so why give them a handout? Because chances are they'll not invest in the country and you don't get the jobs?

It's all well and good saying make cuts but the impact and consequences of that would be absolutely massive. If anything it'd push the country close to civil war.
Click to expand...
Our debt repayments are projected to be £105.2bn (OBR) this year, some forecasters have this at £160+ bn. 2025-26 the OBR predicts £111.2 bn. The problem here is that if you don’t manage public debt, this pot of spending grows and if interest rates go up (which they are) or your credit rating gets downgraded, these costs also increase. It can (and will) become a doom loop.

This fuels more borrowing, which isn’t going on important government spending priorities, it’s borrowing more to pay off previous borrowing.

duffer said:
If you think the Tories have a better record on diversity than Labour just because they've had two female leaders, then you don't really understand what diversity is. Don't, whatever you do, Google Islamaphobia and the Tory party, for a start....

You're standing up for a party that fucked the country, with a leader that even her own side are struggling to support. You're good at pseudo intellectualism, but you've not made a great case here...

www.independent.co.uk

Tory MP openly criticises Kemi Badenoch and challenges her to suspend him

Prime minister Keir Starmer tells Conservative leader she will ‘never’ be PM
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...

4 female party leaders and 2 ethnic minority PMs. You can mention Islamophobia, whatever issues there may be, British Muslims have got to the top of the Tory party, Javid and Zahawi have been chancellors and leadership contenders.

These facts are hilarious because ‘the left’ hates it that the ‘nasty party’ has a better record of elevating under-represented groups.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
If you think the Tories have a better record on diversity than Labour just because they've had two female leaders, then you don't really understand what diversity is. Don't, whatever you do, Google Islamaphobia and the Tory party, for a start....

You're standing up for a party that fucked the country, with a leader that even her own side are struggling to support. You're good at pseudo intellectualism, but you've not made a great case here...

www.independent.co.uk

Tory MP openly criticises Kemi Badenoch and challenges her to suspend him

Prime minister Keir Starmer tells Conservative leader she will ‘never’ be PM
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...

They have had 4 female leaders
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
"Real austerity" would put the economy in massive trouble.

For a start that many people losing jobs means you've now got those people on benefits while not getting ta from their wages. Those people will also not have money to spend and so private businesses will contract, cutting further jobs resulting in more benefits/less tax in a vicious circle, as well as things like CT going down as their business suffers.

Then as those contract you end up with growth growing into reverse and the resultant recession causing our cost of borrowing to go up.

So have more need for welfare, less tax revenue and cost of borrowing going up. Sounds like a great plan.

And that's without even thinking about the human aspect of what those cuts would cause. What do you cut? Welfare? Well in that case crime goes up and so you need more from the police, courts and prisons. Only you've probably cut them too so places are almost like the wild west.

What about health? Cut it for physical health and you'll get even more people unfit to work and so reliant on welfare. Cut mental health provision and you're likely looking at increase in crime as people's conditions aren't being managed properly. We've already seen this in the past.

How about cutting handouts to large businesses to invest in the country? They already have a lot of money so why give them a handout? Because chances are they'll not invest in the country and you don't get the jobs?

It's all well and good saying make cuts but the impact and consequences of that would be absolutely massive. If anything it'd push the country close to civil war.
Click to expand...

And that’s the lefts answer, try to control spending and you’ll get civil war 🤷‍♂️. This isn’t even cuts it’s about slowing the acceleration to a more sustainable level

There’s plenty of truth in what you say but the constant ‘no’ to everything is exactly why the bond markets have been charging us 4.6% (10 yr) and 5.4%(30 yr)*. I could reel off a load of spending stats again, highlight welfare projected to go through the roof, public sector productivity still below 2019 levels even though gov spending is about 50%** per annum more (yes, that’s correct !!!!) and unions still going on unnecessary strikes…. but it’s a waste of time

All I’ll say is civil war is extremely unlikely but it’s looking like unless government spending starts to deliver for the public as a whole, Reform will be in. Then we’ll probably see what real cuts are, which i for one would personally prefer to avoid.

*I can get a mortgage for cheaper, that’s how we’re currently viewed !

**obviously we’ve had significant inflation but still !
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
And that’s the lefts answer, try to control spending and you’ll get civil war 🤷‍♂️. This isn’t even cuts it’s about slowing the acceleration to a more sustainable level

There’s plenty of truth in what you say but the constant ‘no’ to everything is exactly why the bond markets have been charging us 4.6% (10 yr) and 5.4%(30 yr)*. I could reel off a load of spending stats again, highlight welfare projected to go through the roof, public sector productivity still below 2019 levels even though gov spending is about 50%** per annum more (yes, that’s correct !!!!) and unions still going on unnecessary strikes…. but it’s a waste of time

All I’ll say is civil war is extremely unlikely but it’s looking like unless government spending starts to deliver for the public as a whole, Reform will be in. Then we’ll probably see what real cuts are, which i for one would personally prefer to avoid.

*I can get a mortgage for cheaper, that’s how we’re currently viewed !

**obviously we’ve had significant inflation but still !
Click to expand...
The point re civil war was mainly about Reform potentially getting in and making those cuts (while they will undoubtedly massively slash taxes, especially for the rich) and at that point civil war becomes a more frightening prospect.

My main point was that we have had Starmer and many Tories before talk about getting out of this mess via growth then making cuts that completely prevent any kind of growth. And those cuts have only been in terms of below inflation increases, so imagine what actual cuts would cause.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
The point re civil war was mainly about Reform potentially getting in and making those cuts (while they will undoubtedly massively slash taxes, especially for the rich) and at that point civil war becomes a more frightening prospect.

My main point was that we have had Starmer and many Tories before talk about getting out of this mess via growth then making cuts that completely prevent any kind of growth. And those cuts have only been in terms of below inflation increases, so imagine what actual cuts would cause.
Click to expand...

This narrative is hysterical, frankly.

Reform's flagship policy on tax was to increase the tax-free threshold to £20,000 from c. £13,000. Which is a tax that benefits everyone but helps lower income people the most. For example, an individual earning £30k will go from having around 55% of their income being taxable to 33%.

In addition, they proposed cutting the 20% tax on frontline NHS staff so they are the party that has spoken the most about alleviating the tax burden on median salaried people. Richard Tice (Tory member up to 2019 btw) is a capable person and gets into the nitty gritty of policy. Last election their policy "program" was, for obvious reasons, half-baked and did not have a serious plan for government but there's some decent policy ideas in there.

You've spoken about about pay needing to rise with inflation (separate convo), but the tax bands have been frozen for a long time. This is de facto a 'tax rise' and you find more and more people dragged into higher tax brackets something called 'fiscal drag'. To link this with welfare, UC and other benefits have risen higher than the tax-free PAYE threshold. This predictably disincentivises work because you'd have to earn 28k p/a to make work 'pay' more than benefits after you take NI and income tax into account (note: the maths here is v air balled).
 
Last edited:
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
And that’s the lefts answer, try to control spending and you’ll get civil war 🤷‍♂️. This isn’t even cuts it’s about slowing the acceleration to a more sustainable level

There’s plenty of truth in what you say but the constant ‘no’ to everything is exactly why the bond markets have been charging us 4.6% (10 yr) and 5.4%(30 yr)*. I could reel off a load of spending stats again, highlight welfare projected to go through the roof, public sector productivity still below 2019 levels even though gov spending is about 50%** per annum more (yes, that’s correct !!!!) and unions still going on unnecessary strikes…. but it’s a waste of time

All I’ll say is civil war is extremely unlikely but it’s looking like unless government spending starts to deliver for the public as a whole, Reform will be in. Then we’ll probably see what real cuts are, which i for one would personally prefer to avoid.

*I can get a mortgage for cheaper, that’s how we’re currently viewed !

**obviously we’ve had significant inflation but still !
Click to expand...

The main driver for public spending increases was giving the public sector workers pay rises and frankly, its caused a significant black hole in the public finances. Right now, the Chancellor is struggling to actually pay for this because the bond markets are noticing and the cost of borrowing is increasing, which will continue if there is no 'credible' plan to balance the books. In fact, our bond yield are more expensive than Greek and Italian bond yields which is a huge red flag (i.e. the bonds trust Greece and Italy to pay their debt more than the UK).

I overheard this on a podcast whilst driving so may have misheard, but an economist has worked out roughly 81% of new borrowing is being used to pay off previous borrowing. Imagine you borrow £100 and use £81 of that to pay off interest on debt, it will quickly become unmanageable and this is how a debt crisis can happen.

Even look at France, their credit rating has been downgraded and their recently ousted PM was doing the rounds saying public spending is no longer affordable.
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
The point re civil war was mainly about Reform potentially getting in and making those cuts (while they will undoubtedly massively slash taxes, especially for the rich) and at that point civil war becomes a more frightening prospect.

My main point was that we have had Starmer and many Tories before talk about getting out of this mess via growth then making cuts that completely prevent any kind of growth. And those cuts have only been in terms of below inflation increases, so imagine what actual cuts would cause.
Click to expand...

But people keep talking about cuts and yet the extra borrowing and tax this government have brought in should generate an extra £300-400bn during the parliament. Unfortunately spending is accelerating also

Nobody wants to take the tough choices, do we keep triple lock, do we allow an ever growing number to claim welfare, can we afford to keep making above inflation public sector pay rises unless productivity improves?

As I’ve said before, we’re not the only ones. Been reading about Frances state pension situation, they’re fucked
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
This narrative is hysterical, frankly.

Reform's flagship policy on tax was to increase the tax-free threshold to £20,000 from c. £13,000. Which is a tax that benefits everyone but helps lower income people the most. For example, an individual earning £30k will go from having around 55% of their income being taxable to 33%.

In addition, they proposed cutting the 20% tax on frontline NHS staff so they are the party that has spoken the most about alleviating the tax burden on median salaried people. Richard Tice (Tory member up to 2019 btw) is a capable person and gets into the nitty gritty of policy. Last election their policy "program" was, for obvious reasons, half-baked and did not have a serious plan for government but there's some decent policy ideas in there.

You've spoken about about pay needing to rise with inflation (separate convo), but the tax bands have been frozen for a long time. This is de facto a 'tax rise' and you find more and more people dragged into higher tax brackets something called 'fiscal drag'. To link this with welfare, UC and other benefits have risen higher than the tax-free PAYE threshold. This predictably disincentivises work because you'd have to earn 28k p/a to make work 'pay' more than benefits after you take NI and income tax into account (note: the maths here is v air balled).
Click to expand...

And clearly the inverse of that is having to cut public spending by billions upon billions, meaning services that I would expect are disproportionately used by the less well-off are either scaled back or dismantled completely.


CCFCSteve said:
But people keep talking about cuts and yet the extra borrowing and tax this government have brought in should generate an extra £300-400bn during the parliament. Unfortunately spending is accelerating also

Nobody wants to take the tough choices, do we keep triple lock, do we allow an ever growing number to claim welfare, can we afford to keep making above inflation public sector pay rises unless productivity improves.

As I’ve said before, we’re not the only ones. Been reading about Frances state pension situation, they’re fucked
Click to expand...

This has just come in as I was typing the above, but the triple lock HAS to be scrapped. Inflation-linked only would be the necessary alternative. Politically impossible though.
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
And clearly the inverse of that is having to cut public spending by billions upon billions, meaning services that I would expect are disproportionately used by the less well-off are either scaled back or dismantled completely.




This has just come in as I was typing the above, but the triple lock HAS to be scrapped. Inflation-linked only would be the necessary alternative. Politically impossible though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It’s got to be done. By the time I’m able to draw a state pension I reckon it will be means tested. A disgrace for people who’ve ‘paid in’ all their lives (we all know NIC is just an extra tax though) but that’s the reality of the situation.

As I said above, check the situation in France, even crazier. Yet people applaud them when they take to the streets, it’s totally unsustainable though. Where’s this endless supply of money supposedly coming from ?

edit - just move it to inflation only to start with. Surely people can’t complain at that. Would also be well received by the markets which might help with borrowing costs, which frees up spending elsewhere. Nobody’s got any bollocks though and will no doubt kick the can
 
Last edited:
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
This has just come in as I was typing the above, but the triple lock HAS to be scrapped. Inflation-linked only would be the necessary alternative. Politically impossible though.
Click to expand...
Look at the response to means testing the WFA. There is zero chance anyone is coming for the triple lock any time soon.

Although knowing my luck it will probably change right as I hit retirement age, which seems to keep getting moved further away.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
And clearly the inverse of that is having to cut public spending by billions upon billions, meaning services that I would expect are disproportionately used by the less well-off are either scaled back or dismantled completely.




This has just come in as I was typing the above, but the triple lock HAS to be scrapped. Inflation-linked only would be the necessary alternative. Politically impossible though.
Click to expand...

The fundamental problem the country has is the lack of economic growth. It's fairly basic economics that a historically high tax burden is not conducive for growth. Previous governments have actually raised more revenue when cutting some taxes (notably, Osborne cutting corporation tax increased revenues). The goal of a tax system is to maximise revenue hence Italy is attracting a lot of wealthy Europeans (particularly from the UK) with attractive tax schemes.

Labour should just scrap it the triple lock, electorally they're in the toilet anyway and particularly with the 'grey vote'. Politically, Keir Starmer and his government are cowardly.

CCFCSteve said:
Agreed. It’s got to be done. By the time I’m able to draw a state pension I reckon it will be means tested. A disgrace for people who’ve ‘paid in’ all their lives (we all know NIC is just an extra tax though) but that’s the reality of the situation.

As I said above, check the situation in France, even crazier. Yet people applaud them when they take to the streets, it’s totally unsustainable though. Where’s this endless supply of money supposedly coming from ?
Click to expand...

Frankly, the government needs to admit the truth that the pension wasn't built in the context of people living into their 80s. Rather than looking at pension pots as something to tax, government needs to do everything to push people to take ownership of their retirement and invest in their own pension pots.
 
Last edited:
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
The fundamental problem the country has is the lack of economic growth. It's fairly basic economics that a historically high tax burden is not conducive for growth. Previous governments have actually raised more revenue when cutting some taxes (notably, Osborne cutting corporation tax increased revenues). The goal of a tax system is to maximise revenue hence Italy is attracting a lot of wealthy Europeans (particularly from the UK) with attractive tax schemes.

Labour should just scrap it the triple lock, electorally they're in the toilet anyway and particularly with the 'grey vote'. Politically, Keir Starmer and his government are cowardly.



Frankly, the government needs to admit the truth that the pension wasn't built in the context of people living into their 80s. Rather than looking at pension pots as something to tax, government needs to do everything to push people to take ownership of their retirement and invest in their own pension pots.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should measure happiness rather than economic growth especially as one will destroy our planet in a few generations
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Maybe we should measure happiness rather than economic growth especially as one will destroy our planet in a few generations
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a discussion I heard with some economists who said that countries that are obsessed with GDP, growth and productivity regularly rank low on happiness indexes. Countries that don't are regularly towards the top.

Was just a quick comment so hardly an extensive, evidence backed study but there may be something to it.
 
Marty

Marty

Well-Known Member
Just need to be sensible and cut the state pension for those under a certain age, lower their NI contributions so they can fund a pension for themselves.

Plenty of other ways to save money too.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Maybe we should measure happiness rather than economic growth especially as one will destroy our planet in a few generations
Click to expand...
Happiness and a prosperous society go hand in hand...

Most people just want enough money to buy a house, run a household and start a family. Particularly the latter is seem out of reach for many ordinary people which fuels our tanking fertility rates and exacerbates our future demographic crisis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 2 more.
    • Total: 13 (members: 5, guests: 8)
    Top