Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing Conservatives wouldn't have done." You seriously think they would have reversed their own policy on benefits cap at the cost of £3bn a year or reduced pension contributions relief to £2000 pa.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pretty much what I expected. Lots of tinkering and some pain for fairly well off people. As usual it will take a day or two for the actual numbers to be well understood. Listening to Badenoch's lightweight response at the moment - so far nothing but ad hominem with the word "she" in virtually every sentence. " Badenoch was embarrassing. Like a school child at times when trying to make a point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Badenoch was embarrassing. Like a school child at times when trying to make a point" Yeah, I can't remember such a poor opposition response to a budget. Time for the Tories to ditch Badenoch. Although with Jenrick all they'd do is eat into Reform support a bit which might let Labour back in (although probably only with support from other left-leaning parties). I guess many Tories would love to have Johnson back as he now looks great in comparison with other options despite his obvious failings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"someone on min. wage loses approx £750 a year due to fiscal drag, someone on benefit with four children increases by about £7000 a year. Of course it pays to work…."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My first impressions are the money coming in will be going straight back out, resulting in little room for growth. " *Population* growth. Duh! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pretty much what I expected. Lots of tinkering and some pain for fairly well off people. As usual it will take a day or two for the actual numbers to be well understood. Listening to Badenoch's lightweight response at the moment - so far nothing but ad hominem with the word "she" in virtually every sentence. " In that case it sounds more 'ad feminem'... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My first impressions are the money coming in will be going straight back out, resulting in little room for growth. *Population* growth. Duh!" Silly me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. " I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reeves said: "To break the cycle of austerity we need a fair and sustainable tax system that funds the public services we all use and is used to support investment to grow our economy". My first impressions are the money coming in will be going straight back out, resulting in little room for growth. " Nothing in this budget to promote business growth. Some interest rate cuts to follow maybe Did this budget raise £25bn or back for more in April | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… " This is the philosophical debate, you maybe right, those in a £2m mansion can afford it, but those in that type of property are also those that contribute by a huge distance the most to HMRC every year. Those people are also most likely to own businesses and have seen the devastating impact on their earnings as a result of the last budget which has seen the increase in unemployment. Add in additional taxes on dividends etc and the govt is absolutely right those with the broadest shoulders are bearing the load while at the same time since Labour took office an additional 1 million people are now claiming benefits without any requirement to seek work. I'm not sure that is good for society and certainly not good for growth. But as we know, this budget is as much about appealing to those likely to vote for you than what maybe best for the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing at all for business start ups or promoting growth, very disappointing" Here's what NACFB have posted on their website. "Below is a summary of key takeaways and outlined measures affecting SMEs and the business lending environment: Business rates reform The Government confirmed a rebalancing of business rates that will reduce bills for retail, hospitality, and leisure firms while increasing charges for high-value commercial properties. A new transitional relief scheme will cap steep rises following the 2026 revaluation, and some local authorities will continue to retain a higher share of rates revenue. For SMEs with premises-based operations, these measures should provide modest but meaningful cost relief and may improve affordability assessments within commercial lending decisions. Investment and growth conditions Despite a downgrade to long-term productivity forecasts, the Government is maintaining more than £120 billion of capital investment in infrastructure, transport and energy systems. Additional planning reforms aim to accelerate development and support regional growth. For lenders, the continued focus on public investment, planning certainty and regional competitiveness is relevant to pipeline activity across property, development, and asset finance. Labour market and welfare reforms Changes to Universal Credit, youth employment support, and the scrapping of the two-child limit form part of a wider effort to reduce inactivity and strengthen the workforce. A more stable labour market, with clearer incentives to work, is positive for SME capacity and long-term resilience. Inflation and cost pressures The Budget includes a package expected to reduce inflation by 0.4 percentage points next year, according to the OBR. Measures include around £150 off household energy bills, a one-year freeze on rail fares, and a continued freeze in prescription charges. Fuel duty will also remain cut until August 2026 before gradually returning to previous levels. Lower inflation and improved household stability should support consumer-facing SMEs and contribute to a more predictable credit environment." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reeves said: "To break the cycle of austerity we need a fair and sustainable tax system that funds the public services we all use and is used to support investment to grow our economy". My first impressions are the money coming in will be going straight back out, resulting in little room for growth. Nothing in this budget to promote business growth. Some interest rate cuts to follow maybe Did this budget raise £25bn or back for more in April " A rise in income tax across the board was the only credible way forward, Reeves and Starmer floated the idea and lost their nerve when the country was ready for it. Backtracking defines their time in office, it will probably end it too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing at all for business start ups or promoting growth, very disappointing Here's what NACFB have posted on their website. Below is a summary of key takeaways." House sales down Car sales down Tourism down Retail down Online down Business confidence down More businesses closing than opening Universities hit with 6% levy on foreign students 2% extra tax on dividends Insolvencies up Homelessness up (more landlord taxes today) Poverty up Government borrowing up Cost of government borrowing up Economic growth downgraded - for each of the next five years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… " A good proportion of those properties will be flats in London, and used as rentals, hitting profit and making people sell. But I see it being a reason for people to not upgrade if they are in a 1.5mil property meaning that they can’t be sold around the 2m mark. It could cause devaluation which will have a knock on affect across the board possibly leaving people stuck in lower bands in negative equity and generally stalling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… A good proportion of those properties will be flats in London, and used as rentals, hitting profit and making people sell. But I see it being a reason for people to not upgrade if they are in a 1.5mil property meaning that they can’t be sold around the 2m mark. It could cause devaluation which will have a knock on affect across the board possibly leaving people stuck in lower bands in negative equity and generally stalling." 627 SW1 listings on rightmove @£2M+ Add 12% stamp duty, and 5% additional home stamp duty | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing at all for business start ups or promoting growth, very disappointing Here's what NACFB have posted on their website. Below is a summary of key takeaways. House sales down Car sales down Tourism down Retail down Online down Business confidence down More businesses closing than opening Universities hit with 6% levy on foreign students 2% extra tax on dividends Insolvencies up Homelessness up (more landlord taxes today) Poverty up Government borrowing up Cost of government borrowing up Economic growth downgraded - for each of the next five years " Your technique is called gish galloping. My post was in response to your claim that the budget did nothing to promote business growth. I posted a response from the UK's largest independent trade body for commercial finance brokers. It's obvious to everybody that the economy isn't in great shape but a little balance is useful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nacfb turnover £3.6m Net profit £217k Few ex bank managers who took compulsory redundancy turned to broking. £67 a month membership to put the logo on their letterheads Hardly influential " I'm not trying to promote NACFB, their posting just came top of the list of a google search on business reaction to the budget. I get that you don't like Labour (I'm not a big fan myself) but I do find your posts amusing because rather than arguing against the content of NACFB's lukewarm appraisal of the budget you've used gish galloping and now an appeal to source irrelevance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How will fiscal drag make people on minimum wage £750 a year worse off? " Look it up. Wages rise, more people are pushed into taxation and higher taxation whilst the threshold stay flat for three years. The calculation is based on minimum wage worker averaging 40 hours a week, Over 3 years, the worker’s gross pay rises by ~£3,744, but take-home rises only ~£2,995 — around £750 “lost” to extra tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"House sales down Car sales down Tourism down Retail down Online down Business confidence down More businesses closing than opening Universities hit with 6% levy on foreign students 2% extra tax on dividends Insolvencies up Homelessness up (more landlord taxes today) Poverty up Government borrowing up Cost of government borrowing up Economic growth downgraded - for each of the next five years" "Your technique is called gish galloping." From what I can read online, "gish galloping" is presenting a plethora of arguments without regard to accuracy or strength. Looking at the list above they all seem to be relevant and correct. The poster even takes time to explain one that wouldn't otherwise be obvious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look it up. Wages rise, more people are pushed into taxation and higher taxation whilst the threshold stay flat for three years. The calculation is based on minimum wage worker averaging 40 hours a week, Over 3 years, the worker’s gross pay rises by ~£3,744, but take-home rises only ~£2,995 — around £750 “lost” to extra tax." Ah, so when you said they'll lose £750 a year what you really meant was that they'd be approximately £998 better off a year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"House sales down Car sales down Tourism down Retail down Online down Business confidence down More businesses closing than opening Universities hit with 6% levy on foreign students 2% extra tax on dividends Insolvencies up Homelessness up (more landlord taxes today) Poverty up Government borrowing up Cost of government borrowing up Economic growth downgraded - for each of the next five years Your technique is called gish galloping. From what I can read online, "gish galloping" is presenting a plethora of arguments without regard to accuracy or strength. Looking at the list above they all seem to be relevant and correct. The poster even takes time to explain one that wouldn't otherwise be obvious." Homeless and poverty will always be up because they keep moving the goal posts on what they mean. If you don’t like where you live, you are homeless under the current definition. If you are receiving more in benefits than a family where both the adults work full time on min wage which is a lot of people, half 1 million more after today, then you are in poverty, even if your children all have iPhones. When you judge a government using statistics, just remember that 90% of them are pretty meaningless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"someone on min. wage loses approx £750 a year due to fiscal drag, someone on benefit with four children increases by about £7000 a year. Of course it pays to work…." As my maths teacher would have said. Please show your full calculations not just a number | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look it up. Wages rise, more people are pushed into taxation and higher taxation whilst the threshold stay flat for three years. The calculation is based on minimum wage worker averaging 40 hours a week, Over 3 years, the worker’s gross pay rises by ~£3,744, but take-home rises only ~£2,995 — around £750 “lost” to extra tax. Ah, so when you said they'll lose £750 a year what you really meant was that they'd be approximately £998 better off a year. " Whatever, you clearly do not understand drag. Yes, they will be better off, but they just won’t be able to buy the same amount of stuff because it will be more expensive so they might go hungry but yes, they will be better off according to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… A good proportion of those properties will be flats in London, and used as rentals, hitting profit and making people sell. But I see it being a reason for people to not upgrade if they are in a 1.5mil property meaning that they can’t be sold around the 2m mark. It could cause devaluation which will have a knock on affect across the board possibly leaving people stuck in lower bands in negative equity and generally stalling. 627 SW1 listings on rightmove @£2M+ Add 12% stamp duty, and 5% additional home stamp duty " Savills are predicting annual house price growth from 2024 to 2028 to be 21.6%. So a £2,000,000 property would go up £432,000 in four years. It really does take a significant amount of economic illiteracy to suggest any owner would consider selling up to save a few £,000s a year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… A good proportion of those properties will be flats in London, and used as rentals, hitting profit and making people sell. But I see it being a reason for people to not upgrade if they are in a 1.5mil property meaning that they can’t be sold around the 2m mark. It could cause devaluation which will have a knock on affect across the board possibly leaving people stuck in lower bands in negative equity and generally stalling." I just went and had a look at what the average house price in London was currently…. Just to see how close to the 2 million threshold it is As of September 2025, the average London house price was just a shade under 550,000 pounds (£549,500) That leaves a whole shed load of space where average people are not going to sniff the mansion tax threshold | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When they said the ordinary people will have to pay a little bit more, they should have stopped at pay. I'm thick, but my perspective is: to pay more to those who don't contribute including incentive to keep having children,the people who choose not to be a burden on welfare have to pay. But, those people struggling by on wages above any welfare subsidy have to pay childcare. Now they are in poverty or less than benefits. So, they roll up their sleeves and earn more to be taxed more. House prices go up and they have to pay extra council tax and stamp duty. still battling on, the good citizen puts money aside for a pension for retirement after paying all that tax, only to be taxed on money saved to not be a burden on welfare and pay for old age care. Where is the incentive to earn? And before anyone shouts OK for rich or not easy on benefits, I see both ends of the lifestyle in my job and welfare claimants we're rubbing their hands at the extra benefits to their free houses and cash incomes. The rich pay accountants and the £2m mansion tax is avoided with business premises or offshore companies. Just see the Russian mansions they couldn't seize. Rant over. But this budget will destroy a lot of people earning on the edge of min wage." Wasn't they supposed to be all for the so called ordinary people and not increase their taxes?. I don't recall it myself but on the radio they mentioned that in the last budget she said she would not extend the freeze in the income tax threshold or something like that. One year later she extends it and for an extra year than was predicted. Worryingly all the growth figures are being revised downwards, not just for this year but for years to come. Given growing the economy is a central pledge, that is not good news. Still at least she didn't make the same mistake as last year when she claimed she would not be back for more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More landlords selling up and more rent rises - does the government really like tenants?" Eviction notice specialist Landlord Action has reported its busiest month in more than two years, with instructions from landlords up 62% year-on-year in September 2025. The surge coincided with growing momentum behind the Renters Rights Act and increasing certainty that Section 21 would be phased out, prompting many landlords to take action under the existing system while they still could. There was significant growth in both Section 21 notices and combined Section 21 and Section 8 instructions as landlords sought clarity and control ahead of the upcoming reforms. (24 nov 2025) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… A good proportion of those properties will be flats in London, and used as rentals, hitting profit and making people sell. But I see it being a reason for people to not upgrade if they are in a 1.5mil property meaning that they can’t be sold around the 2m mark. It could cause devaluation which will have a knock on affect across the board possibly leaving people stuck in lower bands in negative equity and generally stalling. I just went and had a look at what the average house price in London was currently…. Just to see how close to the 2 million threshold it is As of September 2025, the average London house price was just a shade under 550,000 pounds (£549,500) That leaves a whole shed load of space where average people are not going to sniff the mansion tax threshold " I can think of a few loopholes, which leads me to think the mansion tax will be a administration nightmare that could cost more than it brings in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the mansion tax has a good chance of killing the market and may never come in to force. I don’t think it will bearing in mind it doesn’t kick in till 2 million pounds… and if you are buying a 2 million pound house, my guess is you can probably afford the extra 2500 pounds a year in council tax! The whole thing was not as bad as people feared… A good proportion of those properties will be flats in London, and used as rentals, hitting profit and making people sell. But I see it being a reason for people to not upgrade if they are in a 1.5mil property meaning that they can’t be sold around the 2m mark. It could cause devaluation which will have a knock on affect across the board possibly leaving people stuck in lower bands in negative equity and generally stalling. 627 SW1 listings on rightmove @£2M+ Add 12% stamp duty, and 5% additional home stamp duty Savills are predicting annual house price growth from 2024 to 2028 to be 21.6%. So a £2,000,000 property would go up £432,000 in four years. It really does take a significant amount of economic illiteracy to suggest any owner would consider selling up to save a few £,000s a year." And if it’s a rental. (As a proportion of dwelling stock London has lowest rate of home ownership at 46.8% in uk and highest concentration of PRS rentals in the uk) Potentially in the meantime up to 47% rate of income tax, and mortgage interest deduction capped at 20%. Loss making if mortgaged. Double council tax if vacant over 12 months, add the mansion tax and RRA effective in May 2026. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The rich pay accountants and the £2m mansion tax is avoided with business premises or offshore companies. Just see the Russian mansions they couldn't seize. ." How does that work, the mansion tax will be administered through a council tax premium, that is not avoided through company ownership ? Changing a property from CT to Business rates via VOA - how does that work in London where Airbnb / holiday let use capped at three months a year, unless it is a designated serviced accommodation which would then pay business rates | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When they said the ordinary people will have to pay a little bit more, they should have stopped at pay. I'm thick, but my perspective is: to pay more to those who don't contribute including incentive to keep having children,the people who choose not to be a burden on welfare have to pay. But, those people struggling by on wages above any welfare subsidy have to pay childcare. Now they are in poverty or less than benefits. So, they roll up their sleeves and earn. …. still battling on, the good citizen puts money aside for a pension for retirement after paying all that tax, only to be taxed on money saved to not be a burden on welfare and pay for old age care. Where is the incentive to earn? ." Less incentive that is for sure | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Savills are predicting annual house price growth from 2024 to 2028 to be 21.6%. So a £2,000,000 property would go up £432,000 in four years. It really does take a significant amount of economic illiteracy to suggest any owner would consider selling up to save a few £,000s a year." You're forgetting that many landlords have buy-to-let mortgages. Those few extra thousands might just tip the balance over to the point where it becomes unaffordable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Savills are predicting annual house price growth from 2024 to 2028 to be 21.6%. So a £2,000,000 property would go up £432,000 in four years. It really does take a significant amount of economic illiteracy to suggest any owner would consider selling up to save a few £,000s a year. You're forgetting that many landlords have buy-to-let mortgages. Those few extra thousands might just tip the balance over to the point where it becomes unaffordable." Many are loss making (because of mortgage tax treatment) especially for higher rate taxpayers. George Osborne’s section 24, and then Jeremy hunt applied the same to holiday lets. Rayners 300,000 social housing way off target so now the shortages are in social and private rental housing with tax and legislation impacting interest in this sector. Lloyd/blackrock entering this space. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Savills are predicting annual house price growth from 2024 to 2028 to be 21.6%. So a £2,000,000 property would go up £432,000 in four years. It really does take a significant amount of economic illiteracy to suggest any owner would consider selling up to save a few £,000s a year. You're forgetting that many landlords have buy-to-let mortgages. Those few extra thousands might just tip the balance over to the point where it becomes unaffordable." If you want to talk about real economic illiteracy than you would be well advised to read a report that Saviils did a couple of years ago. It was a long term UK housing market review covering 1952 to 2022. Average house price in 1952 was just under £2,000 (which is just over £56,000 in today’s money). Over the next 70 years it rose 365% to just over £200k. On the face of it that sounds like an amazing growth rate. In reality, if you work out the compounding this works out to under 2% growth a year. Let me make that clear: less than 2% annual growth is what you can expect from the housing market on average. The market _might_ jump 20%+ over the next four years but that is very unusual and historically very rare. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Savills are predicting annual house price growth from 2024 to 2028 to be 21.6%. So a £2,000,000 property would go up £432,000 in four years. It really does take a significant amount of economic illiteracy to suggest any owner would consider selling up to save a few £,000s a year. You're forgetting that many landlords have buy-to-let mortgages. Those few extra thousands might just tip the balance over to the point where it becomes unaffordable. If you want to talk about real economic illiteracy than you would be well advised to read a report that Saviils did a couple of years ago. It was a long term UK housing market review covering 1952 to 2022. Average house price in 1952 was just under £2,000 (which is just over £56,000 in today’s money). Over the next 70 years it rose 365% to just over £200k. On the face of it that sounds like an amazing growth rate. In reality, if you work out the compounding this works out to under 2% growth a year. Let me make that clear: less than 2% annual growth is what you can expect from the housing market on average. The market _might_ jump 20%+ over the next four years but that is very unusual and historically very rare." That’s 2% real growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nothing at all for business start ups or promoting growth, very disappointing Here's what NACFB have posted on their website. Below is a summary of key takeaways. House sales down Car sales down Tourism down Retail down Online down Business confidence down More businesses closing than opening Universities hit with 6% levy on foreign students 2% extra tax on dividends Insolvencies up Homelessness up (more landlord taxes today) Poverty up Government borrowing up Cost of government borrowing up Economic growth downgraded - for each of the next five years Your technique is called gish galloping. My post was in response to your claim that the budget did nothing to promote business growth. I posted a response from the UK's largest independent trade body for commercial finance brokers. It's obvious to everybody that the economy isn't in great shape but a little balance is useful." We can always rely on you to find a Wiki/Google quote to suit your narrative. As for your comment about the markets not being fussed, the budget was already priced in. You clearly haven't a clue how markets work. And as for finance brokers, they're hardly a bellweather for the wider economy. Whereas the British Chambers of Commerce responded that there was nothing in the Budget to support growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pensioners love a whinge. Angry that the two child cap is lifted for others but angry that the winter fuel allowance was cut for them. Benefits for me, but not for thee." A large number pensioners paid taxes all their lives, baby machines? Probably not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pensioners love a whinge. Angry that the two child cap is lifted for others but angry that the winter fuel allowance was cut for them. Benefits for me, but not for thee. A large number pensioners paid taxes all their lives, baby machines? Probably not." We need the baby machines, birth rate is in the toilet. Even our saviour Nige recognises that. Also, because pensioners retire relatively early these days in relation to an increased life expectancy, they don’t do too bad at all, claiming their triple locked pensions for eons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested." I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? Wouldn't it have been a better idea to remove the employer NI increase and encourage employers to employee or increase wages? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? " I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"someone on min. wage loses approx £750 a year due to fiscal drag, someone on benefit with four children increases by about £7000 a year. Of course it pays to work…. As my maths teacher would have said. Please show your full calculations not just a number " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? " Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare?" Kids from low income families require ‘state support’ not necessarily because they are non working shysters but because their wages are so crap they require state top ups. Whose fault in that instance is it that ‘they cannot afford to raise a child’ really? Their own fault, or the system? I’d argue if somebody is going out to work full time they should be able to afford children without state top ups. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare? Kids from low income families require ‘state support’ not necessarily because they are non working shysters but because their wages are so crap they require state top ups. Whose fault in that instance is it that ‘they cannot afford to raise a child’ really? Their own fault, or the system? I’d argue if somebody is going out to work full time they should be able to afford children without state top ups. " Which leans into the idea of supporting business growth for better jobs and pay, not state handouts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare? Kids from low income families require ‘state support’ not necessarily because they are non working shysters but because their wages are so crap they require state top ups. Whose fault in that instance is it that ‘they cannot afford to raise a child’ really? Their own fault, or the system? I’d argue if somebody is going out to work full time they should be able to afford children without state top ups. Which leans into the idea of supporting business growth for better jobs and pay, not state handouts." Sure, we had 18 years of Conservative government after Mrs T was elected before Blair introduced his minimum wage. Poverty & unemployment still very much existed throughout that era. How long would you need for your theory to bloom exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare? Kids from low income families require ‘state support’ not necessarily because they are non working shysters but because their wages are so crap they require state top ups. Whose fault in that instance is it that ‘they cannot afford to raise a child’ really? Their own fault, or the system? I’d argue if somebody is going out to work full time they should be able to afford children without state top ups. Which leans into the idea of supporting business growth for better jobs and pay, not state handouts. Sure, we had 18 years of Conservative government after Mrs T was elected before Blair introduced his minimum wage. Poverty & unemployment still very much existed throughout that era. How long would you need for your theory to bloom exactly?" Theory? Are you referring to economic growth and how business is the driver of that growth? I'm not sure you know what your actual argument is, you say working people need higher wages, do you think increasing employer NI achieves that? Delivering welfare expansion comes from working people employed by business. If you want a better welfare system you need a government that actually supports business. The budget has offered little to no growth opportunities that I can see, time will tell if the "working person" is going to be happy giving for no return. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare? Kids from low income families require ‘state support’ not necessarily because they are non working shysters but because their wages are so crap they require state top ups. Whose fault in that instance is it that ‘they cannot afford to raise a child’ really? Their own fault, or the system? I’d argue if somebody is going out to work full time they should be able to afford children without state top ups. Which leans into the idea of supporting business growth for better jobs and pay, not state handouts. Sure, we had 18 years of Conservative government after Mrs T was elected before Blair introduced his minimum wage. Poverty & unemployment still very much existed throughout that era. How long would you need for your theory to bloom exactly? Theory? Are you referring to economic growth and how business is the driver of that growth? I'm not sure you know what your actual argument is, you say working people need higher wages, do you think increasing employer NI achieves that? Delivering welfare expansion comes from working people employed by business. If you want a better welfare system you need a government that actually supports business. The budget has offered little to no growth opportunities that I can see, time will tell if the "working person" is going to be happy giving for no return. " The point I’m making is trickle down economics is BS, otherwise it would have succeeded by now wouldn’t it….instead of being on life support since 2008? The problem on a macro scale is the perpetuation of this system in which the gap between rich & poor grows wider by the day. So how about taxing those at the top & a bit of old fashioned wealth redistribution? How can you defend a system where Bezos has too many billions to count yet people employed by him can’t even afford to have kids? Something seriously wrong there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare? Kids from low income families require ‘state support’ not necessarily because they are non working shysters but because their wages are so crap they require state top ups. Whose fault in that instance is it that ‘they cannot afford to raise a child’ really? Their own fault, or the system? I’d argue if somebody is going out to work full time they should be able to afford children without state top ups. Which leans into the idea of supporting business growth for better jobs and pay, not state handouts. Sure, we had 18 years of Conservative government after Mrs T was elected before Blair introduced his minimum wage. Poverty & unemployment still very much existed throughout that era. How long would you need for your theory to bloom exactly? Theory? Are you referring to economic growth and how business is the driver of that growth? I'm not sure you know what your actual argument is, you say working people need higher wages, do you think increasing employer NI achieves that? Delivering welfare expansion comes from working people employed by business. If you want a better welfare system you need a government that actually supports business. The budget has offered little to no growth opportunities that I can see, time will tell if the "working person" is going to be happy giving for no return. The point I’m making is trickle down economics is BS, otherwise it would have succeeded by now wouldn’t it….instead of being on life support since 2008? The problem on a macro scale is the perpetuation of this system in which the gap between rich & poor grows wider by the day. So how about taxing those at the top & a bit of old fashioned wealth redistribution? How can you defend a system where Bezos has too many billions to count yet people employed by him can’t even afford to have kids? Something seriously wrong there. " At what point have I mentioned trickle down economics? What do you think would be the result of taxing the wealthy more, and how long would that work? You make an interesting point that some people work for the minimum wage and can't afford to have children without welfare. What is the answer to that, everyone else is expected to pay for the shortfall? Or could there be another set of changes that could lead to better results than are far better than simply throwing money at a problem that isn't going to improve? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" At what point have I mentioned trickle down economics? " "Trickle down economics" is a term used by left wingers when they make strawman arguments against right wingers. You wouldn't see a right wing politician or economist use the term. They prefer "supply side" economics when they talk about policies designed to help businesses. Left wingers, as always mistakenly see wealth as a zero sum property and the term "trickle down" makes sense only in their own minds. So they will keep making bullshit statements like "Trickle down economics never worked". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"2 child benefit cap removal. Should be means tested. I agree, I'm confused why it was removed in the first place. What is the purpose of removing it at such a huge cost? Is it to encourage people to have more children as suggested by others? If that is the idea, is having children that require state support from the get go a good way to go about things? I assume you won’t have any problems with continued mass immigration then if that’s the route you are going down, else who mans our services in the future with a larger cohort of elders going through retirement? Are you really arguing that families who can’t afford to raise a child should be encouraged to have more, subsidised by the state? What happens when the next government has to clean up the usual overspending on welfare and the public sector left behind by Labour and they introduce the cap again? We have been here before.... Why would you not support a business growth agenda that creates jobs, raises wages and lets people support their own families without relying on the state? As for immigration, I have no issues with skilled migrant workers, they contribute, they pay taxes, and they fill roles we genuinely need. What has that got to do with capping or not capping welfare? Kids from low income families require ‘state support’ not necessarily because they are non working shysters but because their wages are so crap they require state top ups. Whose fault in that instance is it that ‘they cannot afford to raise a child’ really? Their own fault, or the system? I’d argue if somebody is going out to work full time they should be able to afford children without state top ups. Which leans into the idea of supporting business growth for better jobs and pay, not state handouts. Sure, we had 18 years of Conservative government after Mrs T was elected before Blair introduced his minimum wage. Poverty & unemployment still very much existed throughout that era. How long would you need for your theory to bloom exactly? Theory? Are you referring to economic growth and how business is the driver of that growth? I'm not sure you know what your actual argument is, you say working people need higher wages, do you think increasing employer NI achieves that? Delivering welfare expansion comes from working people employed by business. If you want a better welfare system you need a government that actually supports business. The budget has offered little to no growth opportunities that I can see, time will tell if the "working person" is going to be happy giving for no return. The point I’m making is trickle down economics is BS, otherwise it would have succeeded by now wouldn’t it….instead of being on life support since 2008? The problem on a macro scale is the perpetuation of this system in which the gap between rich & poor grows wider by the day. So how about taxing those at the top & a bit of old fashioned wealth redistribution? How can you defend a system where Bezos has too many billions to count yet people employed by him can’t even afford to have kids? Something seriously wrong there. At what point have I mentioned trickle down economics? What do you think would be the result of taxing the wealthy more, and how long would that work? You make an interesting point that some people work for the minimum wage and can't afford to have children without welfare. What is the answer to that, everyone else is expected to pay for the shortfall? Or could there be another set of changes that could lead to better results than are far better than simply throwing money at a problem that isn't going to improve? " Before 1979 & the birth of neoliberalism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. Now? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Before 1979 & the birth of neoliberalism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. Now?" Around that time, the theory was that population growth was going to result in deaths and destruction due to starvation. But none of it happened. In fact, the quality of life has improved across many factors. Wherever scientifically possible, lives of people has only gotten better. Food, technology, safety, mobility, etc. The only bottle necks in today's society are energy and housing. Technology didn't progress fast enough for housing and energy production improvements to catch up with the population growth. On every other needs, we did catch up and went even further. In spite of its faults, standard of living today is still better than that in the 1970s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Before 1979 & the birth of neoliberalism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. Now? Around that time, the theory was that population growth was going to result in deaths and destruction due to starvation. But none of it happened. In fact, the quality of life has improved across many factors. Wherever scientifically possible, lives of people has only gotten better. Food, technology, safety, mobility, etc. The only bottle necks in today's society are energy and housing. Technology didn't progress fast enough for housing and energy production improvements to catch up with the population growth. On every other needs, we did catch up and went even further. In spite of its faults, standard of living today is still better than that in the 1970s." Food? That one is very debatable. A LOT of mass produced, cheaply made crap out there. A better observation would be drugs have improved, keeping us alive for longer (which in itself has also created other problems) Anyhow, we digress. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Before 1979 & the birth of neoliberalism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother." You could more accurately phrase that as: Before 1979 and the rise of feminism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. Yes, that's true. But then those pesky women started demanding that they weren't just baby machines and that they should be allowed to have careers alongside the men. So now we're in a position where the majority of households have 2 incomes, and the prices of things like houses have shifted accordingly. Do you want to tell women that they must give up their jobs and become full time mothers so that men's wages will be set at a level that can support a family? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Food? That one is very debatable. A LOT of mass produced, cheaply made crap out there. " Do you really think that the quality of food at that time was better? The kind of dietary options and cuisines that people have access to today, most people in the 1970s wouldn't have even imagined. People tend to look at history with rose tinted glasses. The only thing that was better at that time was real estate. Most countries were doing poorly in every other materialistic aspect of life. " A better observation would be drugs have improved, keeping us alive for longer (which in itself has also created other problems) Anyhow, we digress." Every person has a mobile phone today along with internet. This itself has resulted in a huge change in quality of life right from physical safety, shopping to information access. More and more people holiday abroad because flight travel got cheaper. Science has done a great job in coming up with many useful technologies. Capitalism did a great job in bringing the technology to the masses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Before 1979 & the birth of neoliberalism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. You could more accurately phrase that as: Before 1979 and the rise of feminism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. Yes, that's true. But then those pesky women started demanding that they weren't just baby machines and that they should be allowed to have careers alongside the men. So now we're in a position where the majority of households have 2 incomes, and the prices of things like houses have shifted accordingly. Do you want to tell women that they must give up their jobs and become full time mothers so that men's wages will be set at a level that can support a family?" No, but I’m not seeing how this answers the point made. Crap wages regardless of the above have to be topped up by the state on a scale never before seen to support viable jobs. Which means there aren’t nearly enough well paying jobs out there, despite decades of free market capitalism, correct? We seem to have a lot more part time/casual labour though these days. Fine if it suits, but hardly appropriate levels of income to be having children should you want them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Before 1979 & the birth of neoliberalism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. You could more accurately phrase that as: Before 1979 and the rise of feminism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. Yes, that's true. But then those pesky women started demanding that they weren't just baby machines and that they should be allowed to have careers alongside the men. So now we're in a position where the majority of households have 2 incomes, and the prices of things like houses have shifted accordingly. Do you want to tell women that they must give up their jobs and become full time mothers so that men's wages will be set at a level that can support a family? No, but I’m not seeing how this answers the point made. Crap wages regardless of the above have to be topped up by the state on a scale never before seen to support viable jobs. Which means there aren’t nearly enough well paying jobs out there, despite decades of free market capitalism, correct? We seem to have a lot more part time/casual labour though these days. Fine if it suits, but hardly appropriate levels of income to be having children should you want them." why do you think people are on a minimum wage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Before 1979 & the birth of neoliberalism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. You could more accurately phrase that as: Before 1979 and the rise of feminism, a one wage household could (& frequently did) support a family with a stay at home mother. Yes, that's true. But then those pesky women started demanding that they weren't just baby machines and that they should be allowed to have careers alongside the men. So now we're in a position where the majority of households have 2 incomes, and the prices of things like houses have shifted accordingly. Do you want to tell women that they must give up their jobs and become full time mothers so that men's wages will be set at a level that can support a family? No, but I’m not seeing how this answers the point made. Crap wages regardless of the above have to be topped up by the state on a scale never before seen to support viable jobs. Which means there aren’t nearly enough well paying jobs out there, despite decades of free market capitalism, correct? We seem to have a lot more part time/casual labour though these days. Fine if it suits, but hardly appropriate levels of income to be having children should you want them. why do you think people are on a minimum wage? " To try and rectify that problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, but I’m not seeing how this answers the point made. Crap wages regardless of the above have to be topped up by the state on a scale never before seen to support viable jobs. Which means there aren’t nearly enough well paying jobs out there, despite decades of free market capitalism, correct? " You are showing an example of government interference and blaming the outcome on free markets. If the state doesn't top up, the markets will have to adapt to it and give larger wages. There is a reason why American healthcare workers get paid higher than the ones in the UK. Sweden doesn't even have a minimum wage. And yet, the workers there are well paid compared to UK. Why do you think that's the case? " We seem to have a lot more part time/casual labour though these days. Fine if it suits, but hardly appropriate levels of income to be having children should you want them." Money has nothing to do with number of kids people have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, but I’m not seeing how this answers the point made. Crap wages regardless of the above have to be topped up by the state on a scale never before seen to support viable jobs. Which means there aren’t nearly enough well paying jobs out there, despite decades of free market capitalism, correct? You are showing an example of government interference and blaming the outcome on free markets. If the state doesn't top up, the markets will have to adapt to it and give larger wages. There is a reason why American healthcare workers get paid higher than the ones in the UK. Sweden doesn't even have a minimum wage. And yet, the workers there are well paid compared to UK. Why do you think that's the case? We seem to have a lot more part time/casual labour though these days. Fine if it suits, but hardly appropriate levels of income to be having children should you want them. Money has nothing to do with number of kids people have." If the market always adapts why would wage support have ever been introduced in the first place if not to help the working poor? Money has nothing to do with the decision to have kids? I simply don’t agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If the market always adapts why would wage support have ever been introduced in the first place if not to help the working poor? " Most probably a ruling political party saw some temporary situation in some specific sector and decided to introduce this policy. Then the businesses started taking advantage of that. If someone works many hours only to not even earn enough for basic amenities, that person will stop doing that work and go for another job. The company will lose employees. They will be forced to increase the wages. From a politician's perspective, getting people dependent on the state is good because it gives the politicians more power over the people. If the plebs start looking after themselves, you can't build a powerful state. " Money has nothing to do with the decision to have kids? I simply don’t agree. " Poor families have more kids than rich families in every country. Poorer countries have higher birth rates compared to richer countries. In countries where they have adapted more financial support for people having children, the impact has been negligible. Data shows the opposite of what you claim. Religion seems to be another major factor impacting birth rates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If the market always adapts why would wage support have ever been introduced in the first place if not to help the working poor? Most probably a ruling political party saw some temporary situation in some specific sector and decided to introduce this policy. Then the businesses started taking advantage of that. If someone works many hours only to not even earn enough for basic amenities, that person will stop doing that work and go for another job. The company will lose employees. They will be forced to increase the wages. From a politician's perspective, getting people dependent on the state is good because it gives the politicians more power over the people. If the plebs start looking after themselves, you can't build a powerful state. Money has nothing to do with the decision to have kids? I simply don’t agree. Poor families have more kids than rich families in every country. Poorer countries have higher birth rates compared to richer countries. In countries where they have adapted more financial support for people having children, the impact has been negligible. Data shows the opposite of what you claim. Religion seems to be another major factor impacting birth rates." On birth rates, if poorer families & countries typically have more kids do you not think that is because of things like infant mortality or needing lots of breadwinners on low earnings to support a household? Historically, especially, I think that was definitely the case in the UK. But birth rates have been in decline for over five decades here now. I like the theory of people uprooting to new jobs. Problem is there aren’t enough of those well paid jobs. I’d agree though that some larger companies posting large profits certainly do take advantage of state supplementation of wages, there’s no question about that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Crap wages regardless of the above have to be topped up by the state on a scale never before seen to support viable jobs. Which means there aren’t nearly enough well paying jobs out there, despite decades of free market capitalism, correct?" But wages aren't crap. The minimum wage is a good amount to be earning if you are a single person living outside a major city. We can't just increase the minimum wage to make sure that everyone can afford to raise a family, because that means that those who choose not to have kids will be earning a fortune. So we do it this way. Set the minimum wage at a sensible level per person, and then give benefits only to those that need them. "We seem to have a lot more part time/casual labour though these days. Fine if it suits, but hardly appropriate levels of income to be having children should you want them." If you're in that position, there seem to be 2 ways forward. A) get the government to subsidise your desire to have kids. B) don't have kids that you can't afford. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Savills are predicting annual house price growth from 2024 to 2028 to be 21.6%. So a £2,000,000 property would go up £432,000 in four years. It really does take a significant amount of economic illiteracy to suggest any owner would consider selling up to save a few £,000s a year. You're forgetting that many landlords have buy-to-let mortgages. Those few extra thousands might just tip the balance over to the point where it becomes unaffordable. If you want to talk about real economic illiteracy than you would be well advised to read a report that Saviils did a couple of years ago. It was a long term UK housing market review covering 1952 to 2022. Average house price in 1952 was just under £2,000 (which is just over £56,000 in today’s money). Over the next 70 years it rose 365% to just over £200k. On the face of it that sounds like an amazing growth rate. In reality, if you work out the compounding this works out to under 2% growth a year. Let me make that clear: less than 2% annual growth is what you can expect from the housing market on average. The market _might_ jump 20%+ over the next four years but that is very unusual and historically very rare." The compound interest rate for £2,000 to grow to £200,000 over 70 years is 6.74% per annum. Where did your 2% come from? At 6.74% annual price growth a £2million house increases by £134,800 a year. If an owner sells up because of a £2,500 annual mansion tax I would suggest they are financially illiterate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At 6.74% annual price growth a £2million house increases by £134,800 a year. If an owner sells up because of a £2,500 annual mansion tax I would suggest they are financially illiterate." Then you don't understand liquidity. Image a little old lady who inherited a house in central London which is now worth over £2m. She only has a small pension, and can just about afford to pay the council tax. With the new Mansion Tax, she'll suddenly have to find an extra £2,500 a year. Money she doesn't have. She'll have to sell the house and move away from her friends and support network to a cheaper area, just to get the money to pay the tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At 6.74% annual price growth a £2million house increases by £134,800 a year. If an owner sells up because of a £2,500 annual mansion tax I would suggest they are financially illiterate. Then you don't understand liquidity. Image a little old lady who inherited a house in central London which is now worth over £2m. She only has a small pension, and can just about afford to pay the council tax. With the new Mansion Tax, she'll suddenly have to find an extra £2,500 a year. Money she doesn't have. She'll have to sell the house and move away from her friends and support network to a cheaper area, just to get the money to pay the tax." No she won't. Plenty of asset rich but income poor people already make use of the many financial instruments available to increase their liquidity without selling up. My posts refer to a poster's claim that " the mansion tax will crash the housing market". Perhaps central London has so many "impoverished little old ladies" selling up that the whole housing market will collapse, followed by the whole economy, and the IMF will sell the UK for a £1 to Trump. I think I understand far more about real world economics than you, and I certainly don't share your negativity on just about everything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My posts refer to a poster's claim that " the mansion tax will crash the housing market"." I think you might be in the wrong thread. Nobody has said that here. But if that's what you were aiming at, I agree that it won't 'crash' the market. "I think I understand far more about real world economics than you, and I certainly don't share your negativity on just about everything." I think you're mixing me up with someone else. I don't think I display any negativity. I'd be interested to see any examples you might have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" On birth rates, if poorer families & countries typically have more kids do you not think that is because of things like infant mortality or needing lots of breadwinners on low earnings to support a household? Historically, especially, I think that was definitely the case in the UK. But birth rates have been in decline for over five decades here now. " Historically, infant mortality rate and child labour were issues. Not anymore. And hence birth rates have declined. There were multiple factors driving birth rates and you have mentioned two of them. Religion and social pressure are other major factors which also have been on decline. And even with all these changes, relatively speaking, poor families have more kids compared to the rich and poor countries have higher birth rates. The explanation is simple - people see kids as a way to achieve happiness. But it also comes with a massive sacrifice. If you have a kid, it limits what you can and cannot do, for many years. Today, you have so many ways to achieve instant gratification within your reach, be it travel or any other hobbies. More and more people are choosing this path. Even the ones who genuinely want kids stop with just one or two kids. Giving people more money isn't going to change their attitude towards having kids. " I like the theory of people uprooting to new jobs. Problem is there aren’t enough of those well paid jobs. I’d agree though that some larger companies posting large profits certainly do take advantage of state supplementation of wages, there’s no question about that." On one hand, you were arguing that we do not have enough number of people to do the jobs and we need immigrants for that. Now you are saying that we don't have enough number of jobs. If we don't have enough number of jobs which pay enough for basic living, what kind of jobs are the immigrants doing and how are they surviving if they are paid lower than the basic needs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are having to decide. A place to live or kid's For many years grandparents filled the gap regarding childcare but many grandparents are both working until retirement and beyond so for lots that's not an option.the cost of childcare is staggering and beyond the means of many. " Even people who live in luxurious mansions have less number of kids. Look at the people around you. If you hand them £200,000 in cash, how many of them will decide to have more kids and how many will decide to use the money for holidays, making their homes more luxurious, nicer cars, etc? Sure having kids needs money. But that's not the reason why people have stopped having kids. People's attitude towards having children has changed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" On birth rates, if poorer families & countries typically have more kids do you not think that is because of things like infant mortality or needing lots of breadwinners on low earnings to support a household? Historically, especially, I think that was definitely the case in the UK. But birth rates have been in decline for over five decades here now. Historically, infant mortality rate and child labour were issues. Not anymore. And hence birth rates have declined. There were multiple factors driving birth rates and you have mentioned two of them. Religion and social pressure are other major factors which also have been on decline. And even with all these changes, relatively speaking, poor families have more kids compared to the rich and poor countries have higher birth rates. The explanation is simple - people see kids as a way to achieve happiness. But it also comes with a massive sacrifice. If you have a kid, it limits what you can and cannot do, for many years. Today, you have so many ways to achieve instant gratification within your reach, be it travel or any other hobbies. More and more people are choosing this path. Even the ones who genuinely want kids stop with just one or two kids. Giving people more money isn't going to change their attitude towards having kids. On one hand, you were arguing that we do not have enough number of people to do the jobs and we need immigrants for that. Now you are saying that we don't have enough number of jobs. If we don't have enough number of jobs which pay enough for basic living, what kind of jobs are the immigrants doing and how are they surviving if they are paid lower than the basic needs?" Unskilled immigrants are doing jobs Brits typically don’t want to do, eg Public toilet cleaners on minimum wages and so on. They are surviving because their wages are having to be topped up by the state (unless they are working cash in hand off radar of course). Anecdotal I know but a friend of my son currently works full time for a water company that posts profit whilst providing substandard services, he is above minimum wage. He is in Social Housing & runs an eight year old car. He also works delivering for a take away cash in hand some evenings to supplement his insufficient wages. This stuff is happening out there, because jobs do not pay enough to constitute a decent living wage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unskilled immigrants are doing jobs Brits typically don’t want to do, eg Public toilet cleaners on minimum wages and so on. They are surviving because their wages are having to be topped up by the state (unless they are working cash in hand off radar of course). Anecdotal I know but a friend of my son currently works full time for a water company that posts profit whilst providing substandard services, he is above minimum wage. He is in Social Housing & runs an eight year old car. He also works delivering for a take away cash in hand some evenings to supplement his insufficient wages. This stuff is happening out there, because jobs do not pay enough to constitute a decent living wage. " I already explained this. The government having such programs where they are topping up salaries is the reason why the companies are able to pay such lower salaries. You said that there aren't any other jobs where they can go to and so companies will still pay low. I pointed out that labour shortage is a problem and hence the country is relying on immigration. Now you are back to saying that the immigrants are surviving because their salaries are being topped up by the government. You don't see the circular argument you are making? Not to mention the fact that there are minimum salary requirements to hire immigrants. And that's higher than the national minimum wage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are having to decide. A place to live or kid's For many years grandparents filled the gap regarding childcare but many grandparents are both working until retirement and beyond so for lots that's not an option.the cost of childcare is staggering and beyond the means of many. Even people who live in luxurious mansions have less number of kids. Look at the people around you. If you hand them £200,000 in cash, how many of them will decide to have more kids and how many will decide to use the money for holidays, making their homes more luxurious, nicer cars, etc? Sure having kids needs money. But that's not the reason why people have stopped having kids. People's attitude towards having children has changed. " I agree, attitudes have changed inline with consumerism and pressures to go there, have that, do that. Consumerism is driving the low wage market, people want it but are not prepared to pay for it. The circle is complete. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are having to decide. A place to live or kid's For many years grandparents filled the gap regarding childcare but many grandparents are both working until retirement and beyond so for lots that's not an option.the cost of childcare is staggering and beyond the means of many. Even people who live in luxurious mansions have less number of kids. Look at the people around you. If you hand them £200,000 in cash, how many of them will decide to have more kids and how many will decide to use the money for holidays, making their homes more luxurious, nicer cars, etc? Sure having kids needs money. But that's not the reason why people have stopped having kids. People's attitude towards having children has changed. I agree, attitudes have changed inline with consumerism and pressures to go there, have that, do that. Consumerism is driving the low wage market, people want it but are not prepared to pay for it. The circle is complete. " Exactly! Everything you see around you, both in traditional media and social media have been relentlessly promoting consumerism in forms of travel, home decoration, nicer goods, cars, etc. This has been going on for decades now. There are so many ways to distract yourself too. Decline in religion and social pressure, reliance on both public and private pensions means people don't have any external motivation to have kids either. You put them all together and can see why birth rates have declined. It also explains why increase in wealth results in decline in fertility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unskilled immigrants are doing jobs Brits typically don’t want to do, eg Public toilet cleaners on minimum wages and so on. They are surviving because their wages are having to be topped up by the state (unless they are working cash in hand off radar of course). Anecdotal I know but a friend of my son currently works full time for a water company that posts profit whilst providing substandard services, he is above minimum wage. He is in Social Housing & runs an eight year old car. He also works delivering for a take away cash in hand some evenings to supplement his insufficient wages. This stuff is happening out there, because jobs do not pay enough to constitute a decent living wage. I already explained this. The government having such programs where they are topping up salaries is the reason why the companies are able to pay such lower salaries. You said that there aren't any other jobs where they can go to and so companies will still pay low. I pointed out that labour shortage is a problem and hence the country is relying on immigration. Now you are back to saying that the immigrants are surviving because their salaries are being topped up by the government. You don't see the circular argument you are making? Not to mention the fact that there are minimum salary requirements to hire immigrants. And that's higher than the national minimum wage." Ok, if the state withdrew all in work support & the minimum wage you wouldn’t foresee any problems? You think the market would adjust accordingly & pay everybody a better wage? It’s as if workers were never exploited in the pre welfare era isn’t it? Victorian workhouses paying a pittance were never a thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok, if the state withdrew all in work support & the minimum wage you wouldn’t foresee any problems? You think the market would adjust accordingly & pay everybody a better wage? It’s as if workers were never exploited in the pre welfare era isn’t it? Victorian workhouses paying a pittance were never a thing?" You have modern day examples - most Scandinavian countries don't have minimum wage, nor do the governments top up people's wages in these countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok, if the state withdrew all in work support & the minimum wage you wouldn’t foresee any problems? You think the market would adjust accordingly & pay everybody a better wage? It’s as if workers were never exploited in the pre welfare era isn’t it? Victorian workhouses paying a pittance were never a thing? You have modern day examples - most Scandinavian countries don't have minimum wage, nor do the governments top up people's wages in these countries." Last time I looked, they also paid more tax? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok, if the state withdrew all in work support & the minimum wage you wouldn’t foresee any problems? You think the market would adjust accordingly & pay everybody a better wage? It’s as if workers were never exploited in the pre welfare era isn’t it? Victorian workhouses paying a pittance were never a thing? You have modern day examples - most Scandinavian countries don't have minimum wage, nor do the governments top up people's wages in these countries. Last time I looked, they also paid more tax?" Everyone paid more tax, not just the rich. In Sweden, a municipal tax rate of around 32% applies for everyone, irrespective of how much they earn. People who earn over an equivalent of £52,000 or over pay an extra 20%. None of that "tax those rich people" mentality. More like "We are in it together. We all pay into the pot." Are you willing to implement such a tax system here? Sweden's corporate tax rate is 20.6% while that in UK is 25%. Would you be happy to reduce the corporate tax rates here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ok, if the state withdrew all in work support & the minimum wage you wouldn’t foresee any problems? You think the market would adjust accordingly & pay everybody a better wage? It’s as if workers were never exploited in the pre welfare era isn’t it? Victorian workhouses paying a pittance were never a thing? You have modern day examples - most Scandinavian countries don't have minimum wage, nor do the governments top up people's wages in these countries. Last time I looked, they also paid more tax? Everyone paid more tax, not just the rich. In Sweden, a municipal tax rate of around 32% applies for everyone, irrespective of how much they earn. People who earn over an equivalent of £52,000 or over pay an extra 20%. None of that "tax those rich people" mentality. More like "We are in it together. We all pay into the pot." Are you willing to implement such a tax system here? Sweden's corporate tax rate is 20.6% while that in UK is 25%. Would you be happy to reduce the corporate tax rates here? " Seeing as the Scandi countries frequently come out at the top of the happy index, I’m sure they are worth looking at & learning from. Thing is though, there are differences. eg Norway with its sovereign fund courtesy of North Sea Oil, whilst in the UK Thatcher pissed it up the wall on 3 million unemployed & tax cuts. I think for a Nordic model to take root here you’d need a greater sense of solidarity than the UK has & less selfishness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Seeing as the Scandi countries frequently come out at the top of the happy index, I’m sure they are worth looking at & learning from. Thing is though, there are differences. eg Norway with its sovereign fund courtesy of North Sea Oil, whilst in the UK Thatcher pissed it up the wall on 3 million unemployed & tax cuts. I think for a Nordic model to take root here you’d need a greater sense of solidarity than the UK has & less selfishness. " And Norway is the only Scandinavian country that has less taxes. The other countries as I said, has higher taxes for everyone. I agree that Norway used its resources in a better way. And yes, you need less selfishness and more solidarity amongst the population to build such a system. You don't get that by saying "those evil rich people and businessmen have to be taxed even more". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unskilled immigrants are doing jobs Brits typically don’t want to do, eg Public toilet cleaners on minimum wages and so on. They are surviving because their wages are having to be topped up by the state (unless they are working cash in hand off radar of course). Anecdotal I know but a friend of my son currently works full time for a water company that posts profit whilst providing substandard services, he is above minimum wage. He is in Social Housing & runs an eight year old car. He also works delivering for a take away cash in hand some evenings to supplement his insufficient wages. This stuff is happening out there, because jobs do not pay enough to constitute a decent living wage. I already explained this. The government having such programs where they are topping up salaries is the reason why the companies are able to pay such lower salaries. You said that there aren't any other jobs where they can go to and so companies will still pay low. I pointed out that labour shortage is a problem and hence the country is relying on immigration. Now you are back to saying that the immigrants are surviving because their salaries are being topped up by the government. You don't see the circular argument you are making? Not to mention the fact that there are minimum salary requirements to hire immigrants. And that's higher than the national minimum wage. Ok, if the state withdrew all in work support & the minimum wage you wouldn’t foresee any problems? You think the market would adjust accordingly & pay everybody a better wage? It’s as if workers were never exploited in the pre welfare era isn’t it? Victorian workhouses paying a pittance were never a thing?" If the minimum wage was abolished, people would have more incentives to develop their skills and aim upwards, that would start at school and continue through career choices. We would still have higher and lower paid jobs, but the minimum wage has basically frozen the bottom rung of the ladder, employers now treat it as the default. Instead of lifting people up, it traps them in low paying roles because employers don’t need to raise wages when the state is topping them up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Seeing as the Scandi countries frequently come out at the top of the happy index, I’m sure they are worth looking at & learning from. Thing is though, there are differences. eg Norway with its sovereign fund courtesy of North Sea Oil, whilst in the UK Thatcher pissed it up the wall on 3 million unemployed & tax cuts. I think for a Nordic model to take root here you’d need a greater sense of solidarity than the UK has & less selfishness. And Norway is the only Scandinavian country that has less taxes. The other countries as I said, has higher taxes for everyone. I agree that Norway used its resources in a better way. And yes, you need less selfishness and more solidarity amongst the population to build such a system. You don't get that by saying "those evil rich people and businessmen have to be taxed even more"." Well that’s where we will have to agree to disagree. Neoliberalism has increased the gap between rich & poor which grows bigger day by day. I don’t see that as a good thing & would happily redress some of that balance, as too much money is being funnelled upwards to too few people whilst the proles argue amongst themselves over the costs of living etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If the minimum wage was abolished, people would have more incentives to develop their skills and aim upwards, that would start at school and continue through career choices. We would still have higher and lower paid jobs, but the minimum wage has basically frozen the bottom rung of the ladder, employers now treat it as the default. Instead of lifting people up, it traps them in low paying roles because employers don’t need to raise wages when the state is topping them up. " I actually agree in part with you here. If a minimum is too comfortable it could reduce incentive. Then again, a role is a role. Who says a toilet cleaner is less essential than somebody working in marketing, or that their job is less valued & should be less paid because it is less skilled? There is an argument to say such undesirable work should be better paid than it is because most people don’t want to do it. It’s when employers take the p*ss that I have a problem. I remember my first job in 1989 straight out of college working for an employer who had a contract with a larger chemical company & who paid £1.50 an hour, full time take home was £60. That was a very low wage in 1989. The boss even had the cheek to pull a few of us out of work to go and stick some loft insulation into his huge house. Feck that, I lasted 10 days. Why should anybody be exploited like that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well that’s where we will have to agree to disagree. Neoliberalism has increased the gap between rich & poor which grows bigger day by day. I don’t see that as a good thing & would happily redress some of that balance, as too much money is being funnelled upwards to too few people whilst the proles argue amongst themselves over the costs of living etc. " Why is gap between rich and poor a problem if the poor also get a decent standard of living? The poorest people today have access to so many things that the poor didn't have access to a few decades back. If you compare gini index, UK's gini index is 32.4 which is same as Germany's and only a little bit higher than Sweden's is 31.6. Finland(27.9) and Norway(26.9) has lower gini index. But Netherlands which has lower taxes for the rich has even lower gini index(25.7). Looks like taxation methods don't have much impact on inequality either. The problem with the left wingers in UK is that they have made up their minds that we need to take away money from the rich. No matter what the problem is, that is always their solution, in spite of evidence showing that it doesn't work. If anything, it only fucks the poor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If the minimum wage was abolished, people would have more incentives to develop their skills and aim upwards, that would start at school and continue through career choices. We would still have higher and lower paid jobs, but the minimum wage has basically frozen the bottom rung of the ladder, employers now treat it as the default. Instead of lifting people up, it traps them in low paying roles because employers don’t need to raise wages when the state is topping them up. I actually agree in part with you here. If a minimum is too comfortable it could reduce incentive. Then again, a role is a role. Who says a toilet cleaner is less essential than somebody working in marketing, or that their job is less valued & should be less paid because it is less skilled? There is an argument to say such undesirable work should be better paid than it is because most people don’t want to do it. It’s when employers take the p*ss that I have a problem. I remember my first job in 1989 straight out of college working for an employer who had a contract with a larger chemical company & who paid £1.50 an hour, full time take home was £60. That was a very low wage in 1989. The boss even had the cheek to pull a few of us out of work to go and stick some loft insulation into his huge house. Feck that, I lasted 10 days. Why should anybody be exploited like that? " That's the rub with minimum wage, that low paid job you had, they are all grouped together along with other jobs that are not so bad. The person working on a minimum wage job that isn't as bad as another job is happier that the role is a good fit for the same money. In my opinion the minimum wage has allowed employers to pay less for jobs that could demand more, and offer less in job security and satisfaction too. If the minimum wage was scrapped, employers would need to try harder to attract the right people, paying less than another employer isn't going to work, or is offering poor working conditions. We need the youth to be more focused on doing better, not being average and settling for the bottom rung because their friends are in the same predicament. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Awful as expected, stealth tax for workers and pensioners and more benefits for those not working. EV & plugin tax will affect some of the lowest paid drivers on zero hours contracts " How does a lowest paid driver on zero hours contract afford an EV ?Or the electricity for that matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well that’s where we will have to agree to disagree. Neoliberalism has increased the gap between rich & poor which grows bigger day by day. I don’t see that as a good thing & would happily redress some of that balance, as too much money is being funnelled upwards to too few people whilst the proles argue amongst themselves over the costs of living etc. Why is gap between rich and poor a problem if the poor also get a decent standard of living? The poorest people today have access to so many things that the poor didn't have access to a few decades back. If you compare gini index, UK's gini index is 32.4 which is same as Germany's and only a little bit higher than Sweden's is 31.6. Finland(27.9) and Norway(26.9) has lower gini index. But Netherlands which has lower taxes for the rich has even lower gini index(25.7). Looks like taxation methods don't have much impact on inequality either. The problem with the left wingers in UK is that they have made up their minds that we need to take away money from the rich. No matter what the problem is, that is always their solution, in spite of evidence showing that it doesn't work. If anything, it only fucks the poor. " I’ve had this conversation before. Yes we may have cheaper technology (at the expense of decimating our own manufacturing industries by the way) but people are using foodbanks? The wealthy use their increased capital to squeeze the proles, gobbling up assets. Living standards have been dropping or at best flatlining since the financial crisis. You know after WE had to bail the banks out (Socialism for the rich) But yeah. Everything is great. Anyhow, laterz. Have to go to work now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’ve had this conversation before. Yes we may have cheaper technology (at the expense of decimating our own manufacturing industries by the way) but people are using foodbanks? The wealthy use their increased capital to squeeze the proles, gobbling up assets. Living standards have been dropping or at best flatlining since the financial crisis. You know after WE had to bail the banks out (Socialism for the rich) But yeah. Everything is great. Anyhow, laterz. Have to go to work now "I am not a fan of the government bailing our banks either. Any self respecting supporter of libertarian economics won't either. Are there problems in the country? Yes. Is the solution just to tax the rich people more? No. Countries which have higher standard of living than UK don't do that. Countries where they have tried increasing tax for the rich are doing poorer than UK. So why is taxing the rich being thrown around as a solution all the time? If evidence is anything to go by, it will only make the living standards even worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neoliberalism has increased the gap between rich & poor which grows bigger day by day." That's just not true. The UK's GINI index (which measures inequality) has been reducing for the past 2 decades, showing a decline in inequality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Awful as expected, stealth tax for workers and pensioners and more benefits for those not working. EV & plugin tax will affect some of the lowest paid drivers on zero hours contracts How does a lowest paid driver on zero hours contract afford an EV ?Or the electricity for that matter. " EV vehicles are very cheap, maybe half the price half the price of a petrol with an eight year warranty on the battery and uber gives £4000 towards the cost. if you’re an Uber driver, it’s the only way to make a decent living. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would seem the OBR stuck another spanner in the chancellors budget works and says there was no black hole back in september as tax receipts were higher than expected. The inference being that taxes have been raised to pay for ballooning welfare. Well there's a surprise as it's a labour budget isn't it ?" Reeves has a fake CV and published a plagiarised book, what do we expect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was a budget to appease Labour backbenchers and put party before country. Manifesto promises broken, decisions made to support Labour voters at the expense of the very hard working folks Labour wooed at the last election. The electorate has long memories, the next 3 years are going to need to be significantly better for them to remain in power." Plenty of time, then, for Fagash to cock up his challenge to their continued progress! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was a budget to appease Labour backbenchers and put party before country. Manifesto promises broken, decisions made to support Labour voters at the expense of the very hard working folks Labour wooed at the last election. The electorate has long memories, the next 3 years are going to need to be significantly better for them to remain in power." I'm never going to be a labour supporter, however I want the party in power to do well, so we all do well. I can't see Labour winning the next election, which is a big problem because right now I can't a credible alternative! Rock and hard place, one of the parties needs to come good. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was a budget to appease Labour backbenchers and put party before country. Manifesto promises broken, decisions made to support Labour voters at the expense of the very hard working folks Labour wooed at the last election. The electorate has long memories, the next 3 years are going to need to be significantly better for them to remain in power. I'm never going to be a labour supporter, however I want the party in power to do well, so we all do well. I can't see Labour winning the next election, which is a big problem because right now I can't a credible alternative! Rock and hard place, one of the parties needs to come good. " That is very much hitting the nail on the head | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Smash the gangs, builders not blockers There’s been more small boat arrivals than new social housing built this year Two more broken pledges. " I read briefly they have backtracked on aspects of day one employment rights, which they once promised. What is the other latest pledger break you mention. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neoliberalism has increased the gap between rich & poor which grows bigger day by day. That's just not true. The UK's GINI index (which measures inequality) has been reducing for the past 2 decades, showing a decline in inequality." “Inequality in household incomes in the UK has remained at a roughly similar level since the early 1990s but is higher than during the 1960s and 1970s. While the share of income going to the top 1% of individuals by household income increased during the 1990s and 2000s, there was some reduction in inequality among the rest of the population (based on incomes before housing costs) with the result that inequality overall was fairly stable during this period”. I’d say ‘housing costs’ which are excluded in the above, are a significant factor at the moment, wouldn’t you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’d say ‘housing costs’ which are excluded in the above, are a significant factor at the moment, wouldn’t you? " Dwarfs everything for sure | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Neoliberalism has increased the gap between rich & poor which grows bigger day by day." "That's just not true. The UK's GINI index (which measures inequality) has been reducing for the past 2 decades, showing a decline in inequality." "“Inequality in household incomes in the UK has remained at a roughly similar level since the early 1990s but is higher than during the 1960s and 1970s. While the share of income going to the top 1% of individuals by household income increased during the 1990s and 2000s, there was some reduction in inequality among the rest of the population (based on incomes before housing costs) with the result that inequality overall was fairly stable during this period”. I’d say ‘housing costs’ which are excluded in the above, are a significant factor at the moment, wouldn’t you?" I'm not sure what you're quoting, but that last sentence (the one that mentions housing costs) appears to be covering the 1990s and 2000s. It doesn't seem to cover the last 15 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most things they chat about giving us is over the next 10 years when they know they wont be in power and cant be blamed. ." Very true, still writing on the tories 40 new hospitals and the Brexit bounce. Labours 1.5 million new homes pmsl Voters really are thick as mince. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most things they chat about giving us is over the next 10 years when they know they wont be in power and cant be blamed. . Very true, still writing on the tories 40 new hospitals and the Brexit bounce. Labours 1.5 million new homes pmsl Voters really are thick as mince. " The electorate could be considered gullible yes, but don’t underestimate the hold the FPTP voting system has over the electorate either. Will Farage & to a lesser extent the Greens continue to break that trend of Labour & the Tories using ‘fear of the alternative’ to get people to vote for them? Time will tell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was a budget to appease Labour backbenchers and put party before country. Manifesto promises broken, decisions made to support Labour voters at the expense of the very hard working folks Labour wooed at the last election. The electorate has long memories, the next 3 years are going to need to be significantly better for them to remain in power." Not sure I agree with that cynical view, anyway wasn’t this meant to be a thread about the budget not politics? I think hit on low & middle earners with fiscal drag was a bad decision, but at least they kept state only pensioners out of tax. They chose to give a huge amount of extra benefits to people that do not work with 2+ children but hit the poorest workers. They reduce ISA for cash reduce salary sacrifice for SIPP , they will also fine people putting money into short-term money markets and cash balances inside SIPP, so it’s clear they are wanting people to take more risks with their money, and falling interest rates will further promote this. The same is happening in the US with 2+ cuts predicted for next year but where is the falling unemployment & increased retail spending while workers are so squeezed and they encourage people with more children onto benefits? And if the AI bubble does not burst, then where is the new job creation to pick up the people laid off? UK and US is gambling on something that is not going to pay off. Global recession is 12 to 18 months away, just after the double digit growth period, it’s like everyone can see this happening but saying let’s make a ton of money first. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They reduce ISA for cash reduce salary sacrifice for SIPP , they will also fine people putting money into short-term money markets and cash balances inside SIPP, so it’s clear they are wanting people to take more risks with their money..." They are indeed promoting the idea that people should invest more and save less, but then the budget increased the tax on dividends, making investment less appealing. They don't seem to be very "joined up". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The subsequent information from the OBR showing a surplus not a deficit shows this budget for what it was, a budget to satisfy the far left Labour backbenchers who have no interest whatsoever in reducing the welfare bill or seeing an increase in economic growth. And is anyone else peed off with the language from govt saying they are asking everyone to contribute? They aren't asking, they are imposing, unless of course you are a beneficiary which the vast proportion are not." I would consider this budget as the final nail for Reeves, she misled us, again. Starmer has 2 options, the least favourable being ride it out and support Reeves, which is what he is looking most likely to do with his speech tomorrow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Homeowner repossessions up 51% annually and 4% from the previous quarter Buy-to-let repossessions up 29% annually and 14% from the previous quarter Business insolvencies 17% higher than the same month in 2024 Personal insolvencies up 16% on 2024 figs 61% increase in tenancy evictions (spike since renters reform act passed). Now the single largest cause of homelessness. Increasing homelessness Increasing poverty Increasing business closures Increasing unemployment Failing new home and social housing delivery targets How can Labour claim their policies are working " Add to the list 1,000,000 more people claiming benefit without the requirement to seek work and you have a pretty impressive set of achievements. On the plus side, waiting lists in the NHS appear to be moving in the right direction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Standards in our politics is shockingly bad. For the speaker to castigate the govt before the budget for the amount of briefings to press in advance of parliament being given the opportunity to review the budget followed by the OBR revelations that show we and the markets were all misled is really just awful. Tories/Labour, as bad as each other when it comes to public service. And all playing into the hands of reform. Hard to believe Labour is doubling down on claiming not to have broken its manifesto pledges or acknowledging contrary to their promises they are increasing benefit payments at the expense of "normal working people" they claim to support." Just watched a rerun of newscast where they focused on the chancellor deliberately misleading the country, as the OBR report was very different to what she claimed and the excuses she made for increasing tax on working people. They also highlighted the money raised in taxes is going to the welfare state to keep certain parts of the labour party happy and in turn relieve some of the pressure on the PM. The side effect is loss of trust in anything they say. Also such a cheek to claim they are asking workers to contribute more money as they are imposing the rises, not asking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Standards in our politics is shockingly bad. For the speaker to castigate the govt before the budget for the amount of briefings to press in advance of parliament being given the opportunity to review the budget followed by the OBR revelations that show we and the markets were all misled is really just awful. Tories/Labour, as bad as each other when it comes to public service. And all playing into the hands of reform. Hard to believe Labour is doubling down on claiming not to have broken its manifesto pledges or acknowledging contrary to their promises they are increasing benefit payments at the expense of "normal working people" they claim to support. Just watched a rerun of newscast where they focused on the chancellor deliberately misleading the country, as the OBR report was very different to what she claimed and the excuses she made for increasing tax on working people. They also highlighted the money raised in taxes is going to the welfare state to keep certain parts of the labour party happy and in turn relieve some of the pressure on the PM. The side effect is loss of trust in anything they say. Also such a cheek to claim they are asking workers to contribute more money as they are imposing the rises, not asking" It seems the only thing this budget has achieved is to encourage people who are on benefits to knock out as many kid's as possible to get even more benefits. It's not actually helping working parents to stay in work. Also as I said previously makes the country more enticing to get to illegally to be able to claim more benefits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it hard to understand how Reeves still has her job, and I strongly suspect she wont be in it too much longer after the OBR confirmed she knew 31st Oct that tax receipts were in surplus. However just over 3 weeks later she told the country she needed to raise taxes to close a black hole suggesting it was caused by brexit, covid and last tory government. The truth is something Reeves is consistently finding hard to deal with. The speculation that she raised taxes to keep labour backbenchers happy and plug the billions she lost through policy u-turns and her previous budget, which was also a disaster, seems to be the most plausible at the moment. " It's literally to plug the gap in adult services, child services and social care which accounts for something like 75%-80%( of spending) don't quote me on that figure it's not an exact amount. But with care homes seemingly a golden ticket to change pretty much anything I think there should be a cap on this to prevent unnecessary charges by greedy owners. How can they justify upwards of £1500 a week, when and I work in care homes pretty much weekly, the staff to resident ratio is massively off, food is like a school canteen and the residents seem to spend most of their days in bed or sat in a chair looking out of a window. I'm NOT SAYING they don't deserve first class care they do, but the costs don't equal quality care particularly in private less monitored homes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it hard to understand how Reeves still has her job, and I strongly suspect she wont be in it too much longer after the OBR confirmed she knew 31st Oct that tax receipts were in surplus. However just over 3 weeks later she told the country she needed to raise taxes to close a black hole suggesting it was caused by brexit, covid and last tory government. The truth is something Reeves is consistently finding hard to deal with. The speculation that she raised taxes to keep labour backbenchers happy and plug the billions she lost through policy u-turns and her previous budget, which was also a disaster, seems to be the most plausible at the moment. It's literally to plug the gap in adult services, child services and social care which accounts for something like 75%-80%( of spending) don't quote me on that figure it's not an exact amount. But with care homes seemingly a golden ticket to *charge*pretty much anything I think there should be a cap on this to prevent unnecessary charges by greedy owners. How can they justify upwards of £1500 a week, when and I work in care homes pretty much weekly, the staff to resident ratio is massively off, food is like a school canteen and the residents seem to spend most of their days in bed or sat in a chair looking out of a window. I'm NOT SAYING they don't deserve first class care they do, but the costs don't equal quality care particularly in private less monitored homes. " *Charge* | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it hard to understand how Reeves still has her job, and I strongly suspect she wont be in it too much longer after the OBR confirmed she knew 31st Oct that tax receipts were in surplus. However just over 3 weeks later she told the country she needed to raise taxes to close a black hole suggesting it was caused by brexit, covid and last tory government. The truth is something Reeves is consistently finding hard to deal with. The speculation that she raised taxes to keep labour backbenchers happy and plug the billions she lost through policy u-turns and her previous budget, which was also a disaster, seems to be the most plausible at the moment. It's literally to plug the gap in adult services, child services and social care which accounts for something like 75%-80%( of spending) don't quote me on that figure it's not an exact amount. But with care homes seemingly a golden ticket to change pretty much anything I think there should be a cap on this to prevent unnecessary charges by greedy owners. How can they justify upwards of £1500 a week, when and I work in care homes pretty much weekly, the staff to resident ratio is massively off, food is like a school canteen and the residents seem to spend most of their days in bed or sat in a chair looking out of a window. I'm NOT SAYING they don't deserve first class care they do, but the costs don't equal quality care particularly in private less monitored homes. " Where are the state care homes The ons statistics are updated monthly on deaths, illnesses and births along with everything else. The state knows exactly when and well in advance the numbers of people that will require schools, housing and old age care. Why has the state not invested in care homes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More bad news for Kier Starmer, the former anti corruption minister he appointed, Tulip Siddiq, has been sentenced to two years in jail after a judge ruled she was complicit in corrupt land deals with her aunt, the country’s deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina. " She's never going to serve that sentence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More bad news for Kier Starmer, the former anti corruption minister he appointed, Tulip Siddiq, has been sentenced to two years in jail after a judge ruled she was complicit in corrupt land deals with her aunt, the country’s deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina. " You couldn't make this shit up, I mean it's like making Ronnie Biggs minister in charge of Bank's. It's gonna go pear shaped. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More bad news for Kier Starmer, the former anti corruption minister he appointed, Tulip Siddiq, has been sentenced to two years in jail after a judge ruled she was complicit in corrupt land deals with her aunt, the country’s deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina. You couldn't make this shit up, I mean it's like making Ronnie Biggs minister in charge of Bank's. It's gonna go pear shaped. " Not forgetting the Rushanara Ali the homelessness minister he appointed issued eviction on her tenants (paying £3.3K rent) so she could relet the property at apparently £4k rent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer claims the budget was a moment of personal pride for him. I believe he thinks what he has said will change the perception of the country, that having a chancellor that wasn't honest in her budget overview and delivery will suddenly be forgotten. He has pinned everything on scrapping the 2 child cap to wash over the tax grab and dire performance of the treasury and Chancellor, that is a short term sticking plaster and it looks a little desperate. Time will tell.." Not going well is it Anti corruption minister resigned and now sentenced to jail Homelessness minister resigned Rayner resigned for tax evasion and possible mis appropriation of sons trust fund Mandelson, a mortgage fraudster under the Blair government had to resign again, this time for links to Epstein Drawing a parallel to the previous new Labour government who had more of their MP’s convicted and imprisoned for expenses fraud, than from any other party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Standards in our politics is shockingly bad. For the speaker to castigate the govt before the budget for the amount of briefings to press in advance of parliament being given the opportunity to review the budget followed by the OBR revelations that show we and the markets were all misled is really just awful. Tories/Labour, as bad as each other when it comes to public service. And all playing into the hands of reform. Hard to believe Labour is doubling down on claiming not to have broken its manifesto pledges or acknowledging contrary to their promises they are increasing benefit payments at the expense of "normal working people" they claim to support. Just watched a rerun of newscast where they focused on the chancellor deliberately misleading the country, as the OBR report was very different to what she claimed and the excuses she made for increasing tax on working people. They also highlighted the money raised in taxes is going to the welfare state to keep certain parts of the labour party happy and in turn relieve some of the pressure on the PM. The side effect is loss of trust in anything they say. Also such a cheek to claim they are asking workers to contribute more money as they are imposing the rises, not asking It seems the only thing this budget has achieved is to encourage people who are on benefits to knock out as many kid's as possible to get even more benefits. It's not actually helping working parents to stay in work. Also as I said previously makes the country more enticing to get to illegally to be able to claim more benefits. " This is probably why it is becoming known as the benefits budget | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More bad news for Kier Starmer, the former anti corruption minister he appointed, Tulip Siddiq, has been sentenced to two years in jail ..." ... by a court in Bangladesh. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
