Pretty much.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I feel like you're mixing up elements which were funded via general taxation (like the NHS) vs flat fee contributions. Only the former would progressively tax the rich (which they certainly did). Regardless, it's irrelevant to the solution in 2026 because the situation is what it is.
How are you going to tax rich people when they will just move - as they historically always have done since travel became global? It's a fantasy. Any kind of progressive tax kills the middle classes (who are also beginning to leave) and doesn't affect the actually rich people at all.
I don't follow Hasan Piker, but to ban Cenk for essentially an opinion is fecking wild. The 'they knew in advance' claim isn't fringe — Shin Bet itself conceded the warnings were there and dismissed, and Israel's own commission of inquiry is built on exactly that. It's wild that the UK government is more censorious than the Israeli security establishment.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/...cy-lists-failures-in-preventing-oct-7-attack/
Yeah I agree re: Cenk, its a bit silly and seems like collateral damage from Hasan
Sympathy isn't really the currency here, principle is. You don't have to like Cenk to see that 'not conducive to the public good' is an elastic enough standard to catch anyone a sitting minister finds inconvenient. The point is that 'he's a grifter' isn't the legal standard for a border ban, and the day it becomes, it won't be limited to people you find tedious.
It’s not a fantasy at all. Taxing the rich works and is the compromise.
Mr Micawber's financial philosophy would disagree... creation of debt = misery (for somebody)
But would you also agree that the welfare bill is far too night? That having millions of people out of work who should be working should not be part of the compromise.
When has it worked in recent history in Europe? Norway raised it's wealth tax - guess what happened? Most European countries tried taxing the super wealthy and all but 3 or 4 have given up. It might work if Switzerland, Andorra, Malta etc. were forced to change their tax policies and how easy it is to get citizenship in some of these countries but we're talking the choice between the same quality of life and being taxed millions vs almost nothing. It's the kind of policy that appeals to people who like slogans - "tax the rich", "No more nukes", "jobs for all" etc. it's not rooted in reality.
No, it’s too low. This country spends the lowest on welfare in any country in Western Europe.
Perhaps we could spend more on those who need it, esp. social care if we didn’t have millions of people living on benefits who should be working.
Wouldn’t it be great to increase pensions for people who have worked all their lives.
Wouldn’t be interesting to see where the breakdowns are. The people who are in real need are drowned out by those who don’t.
Exactly. The fantasy is that not taxing them will end in anything other than ruin for everyone else.
And that they'll all leave. All available evidence shows that's not the case. They can't take their assets with them in any case.
Why? A median earner in the UK pays in about half via NI than what they get through the state pension, with the balance being subsidised.
Deliberately leaving out the quote. Finally admitting to be racists, we knew that all along. Any non white person voting for this must either be a sympathiser like Zia or thick as pig shit.
How much would it cost to appropriately staff the DWP to fully assess claims deeply and determine the correct level of support they get?
Fortunately we have moved on from the 19th century. The gold standard has been abandoned, and money = debt is the basis for modern economics.Mr Micawber's financial philosophy would disagree... creation of debt = misery (for somebody)
I'll say this - that does not mean that we can just spend and spend. The reason Liz Truss's budget proposal failed was that the financial markets reacted badly to her unfunded tax cuts and that drove up borrowing costs and nearly caused a financial meltdown. There are constraints.
But that doesn't mean that money = debt isn't true. Sunak created hundreds of billions of pounds of debt during COVID to support the economy and that was supported by the financial markets. Likewise creating debt to invest in infrastructure projects that would benefit the economy is usually supported by those markets too.
Creating money to spend on welfare wouldn't be. We can argue about the rights and wrongs of that.
But governments do not have to tax in order to spend. It's the other way round. We spend, then tax. The country cannot go bankrupt as the Bank of England is under a legal duty to print money when asked.
And increasing the national debt is not necessarily a problem in itself. Inflation ate away at the massive borrowing we undertook in both world wars until the expenditure became relatively small after a few decades. There is also a good chunk of the national debt we owe to the Bank of England, which means we owe money to ourselves.
We could do what other countries do and reduce interest rates on the payable debt and save ourselves a lot of money in interest payments.
The big issue is getting economic growth going. And we can have arguments about reducing the welfare bill or cutting taxes on business to help that. That still doesn't change the fundamentals. If a major crisis hit tomorrow and the state needed funds, we could find them immediately.
In what fictional jobs would they be working?
The breakdowns are fairly easy to find out, though it does involve wading through spreadsheets:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance
In 2025 to 2026 the government is forecast to spend £322.6 billion on the social security system in Great Britain. Total GB welfare spending is forecast to be 10.6% of GDP and 23.6% of the total amount the government spends in 2025 to 2026.
Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025-26 we will spend £177.7 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £146.1 billion in 2025 to 2026.
In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £145.0 billion on working age and children welfare. This includes spending on Universal Credit and its predecessors, and non-DWP welfare spending.
In 2025 to 2026 we will spend £77.1 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, and £37.3 billion on housing benefits.
The tables show we were spending £147.3 billion (in today's prices) in 2010/11 for the entire welfare bill. It has more than doubled in just over 15 years.
The different tables break everything down in granular terms, going back decades.
£87.6 billion is spent on Universal Credit, so 27% of the total welfare bill. UC applies to people on low income, not just out of work.
And both would be allowed into the country if it wasn't for being critical of the Israeli government.
Charlie Kirk was allowed to come and debate Oxford students. And I beleive Laura Loomer joined those at one of the Right Wing marches. But of course, they are friends with The President, and Starmer wouldnt want to upset him.
That’s a fair point - I have not run the numbers. But also I think for someone paying in lot the system, they don’t begrudge, they even advocate those who haven’t been able to pay in as much - but you do want them to have at least worked for the reward.
Thanks for your work.
I can only apologise for the rabbit hole this may become for you...
Ok, debt is the basis for modern economics..but only when it can be paid down... or the Bank can go on printing money indefinitely.
Either way the legacy this leaves future generations with is (deliberate) inflation, and when there is no work for people to do whether it be via AI or other developments that isolate or deflate the individuals opportunuty to earn a living....personal debt cannot be paid down.
Utimately more people will need to go on benefit(s) of some kind as real work/ employment disappears; the 'working poor' will increase not decrease and that will bring its own problems, economic and social.
The top 20%of the population can take care of themselves; the bottom 20% will always need benefits, its the middle 60% that carries the load. If this balance changes for whatever reason (and we see some evidence of this post covid) then, Micawbers principle will be upheld.
The Bank has been printing money and adding to the national debt since 1694 and will continue to do so. All money is debt. It is mentioned on our banknotes.
Inflation is part of the capitalist system. We lived through it. Future generations will too.
There are measures government can take to mitigate excessive inflation, and doing so involves creating more debt, as the state can shoulder the burden better than you or I. An example would be a decision to extend benefits or cut duties on fuel to help during a cost of living crisis.
Importantly, the economy isn't a household. The state can run at a deficit in a way we cannot. They don't need to raise money through taxation in order to spend. These are fundamental facts that politicians seem incapable of grasping.
National debt does not need to be paid down, at least not immediately. Only the interest payments. It was George Osborne who repaid the capital of the WW1 debts a century later. It is much better to ensure economic growth, although we are struggling with that.
Personal debt and the threat of AI to jobs (and what happens to the money created by AI) are separate from the economic system I described. Those are matters of political debate and decisions which we can have. But we should not conflate the two. Again many politicians do.
Just to add to this our debt is a necessary safe haven for private wealth. Over half our 'debt' is pension and insurance funds i.e private wealth. 20-25% is owned by the BoE.
Only about a third is owned by overseas investors and again it's mostly funds. Whilst we ourselves collectively hold other global debt to ensure safe diversification.
Reducing or stopping any additional debt is just removing avenues for safe investment, money that would go into other countries coffers as a rule. With some exceptions, a growing private economy requires more national debt. The only thing that matters is the interest and that the debt to GDP ratio stays roughly constant outside of crisis spikes (which aren't really an issue)
If people just thought of UK plc as an investment firm instead of a household they'd be much closer to the mark.
Well put, this has always been my view.
That is a big bet!
Is it an assumption we can make, does it not assume we have to continue to be able to retain control, pull the right levers, retain the same continum???
Climate change alone is enough warning that things will not stay the same.
The fact we already have the reality of "the working poor" is likely to become a dominant factor, that if not addressed will test social cohesion to the limit.
Yes, of course national debt is not the same as household debt, except it shapes how people can / cannot address their personal debt issues affected by inflation and by implication affects the quality of life...hence we are back to Micawabers reality.
The warning signs that the 'death of debt' is beginning to appear over the horizon, can only be ignored for a while.
My point is that inflation is part of the economic system, just like taxation. In itself it isn't a problem, and would be much less of a problem in a growing economy where the private sector wage growth matches inflation and people are not gradually worse off.
What you are speaking of is political, and vitally important (and has been since the birth of modern democracy in the UK).
That is very different from my point about how the economy functions, which most politicians seem to have no grasp of. That's a concern, because it means their political solutions to the problems we face are usually based on a flawed understanding of money, inflation and so on.
Here's another point. The national debt does not necessarily shape how people can address their personal debt. It also does not necessarily have a connection to inflation.
After the financial crisis this country has added £2 trillion to its national debt. This was done to stabilise the economy. It also coincided with historically low interest rates and low (compared to today) inflation rates:
https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate/
It was the Ukraine war that had a big impact in 2022, not government debt by itself.
We could make an argument here that quality of life was impacted by government inaction, and a failure to keep interest rates low or spend in the short term to help cost of living issues.
But politicians still treat national debt as if it were personal debt, and the economy as a household.
Climate change is actually quite a good example here. In a sense, it isn't a problem. I mean that because we know what we have to do (decarbonise the economy), and we have large numbers of reports that explain precisely how we need to act and how much we need to spend. We also know that not doing anything (or failing to act in time) will cost much much more than if we act.
Yet Net Zero is treated as an economic millstone, and there are complaints that we cannot afford it. But we can. The state cannot go bankrupt, and this is a good example of how a country could borrow (create debt) to invest to benefit the economy in the longer term. But to do so we need to rid ourselves of the mindset that debt is bad. Just like inflation, it can be in certain circumstances, but it does not have to be.
The state can also change laws which incentivise capital to invest in certain things (like net zero) which will help fund beneficial outcomes.
Here is Richard Murphy (who is a centre-left economist) talking for 13 minutes about money. He is talking from economic orthodoxy. His argument is that there is huge amounts of money in the world, usually held by wealthy people or funds. He explains how governments can encourage that money to be invested for social benefits, creating growth:
My point here is to show how even left-leaning economists can offer creative solutions to encourage growth that don't simply fall back on simple tropes of 'tax the rich' or 'redistribute wealth'.
His other important point is that we currently do not have the political imagination for this. Instead, in constraining ourselves with fiscal rules and the idea that we need to raise taxes to fund spending, all we have done is increase the tax rates on individuals and small businesses to levels we haven't seen since World War Two. Income is heavily taxed. Wealth is not.
Yes, I do understand about the relevance of taxation and inflation as part of the economic system. My point essentially is the current economic system will not be able to be maintained, i.e. 'all going to hell in a hand cart' is a sort of opposite doxology, that I fear will affect the economic system itself.
In the last 20 years the 2008 crash and the recent Covid legacy of 'non-returners to the grindstone' (swelling the benefits take) all indicate future bigger (and occurring more often) problems from many quarters.. are we that confident the economic system we have is sustainable?
In the UK in particular is there any realistic chance the economic development needed is going to materialize? If so how long before we see the benefit, perhaps more important how many PM's and governments are we going to go through, what state/system of government will we have/ be in by 2050?
Investment via borrowing fine, but is it realistic do we have enough expertise in government ability to avoid future, eg. HS2, debacles? The procurement systems the government have are not just 'not fit for purpose' they are nowhere near being fit...'hell in a hand cart'.. etc. Most of all what will boost the current economic model, have we any idea beyond what appears increasingly to be blind faith in AI, and how fast/quickly does this need to be before generations (i.e those currently under 30's in particular) are condemned to the scrap heap, or if they are lucky, becoming part of the 'working poor'?
Micawber was a doom-monger, I suppose I fit that bracket well... sorry!
Last edited:
It's always worth pointing out that loads of people get benefits despite working full-time hours.
There needs to be pressure put on employers to either force them to pay staff an actual living wage or, at the very least, allow some flexibility regarding work from home etc
We also need to take a hit and fund proper education for Adults so they can retrain especially for those that might have been impacted by AI. It's all well and good saying "cut benefits and stop spending" but there needs to be some investment somewhere to give people a chance of a life that is actually decent and just not living month to month.
All good points. The current system isn't working for millions.
Globally we have trouble with tax havens, illegal tax evasion, companies that hold more wealth than many states.
However, we have reimagined the economy before. We did it with Attlee and Thatcher, Fordism, the welfare state and neoliberal economics. We have to do it again. The wealth potentially produced through AI cannot sit with a tiny handful of company owners whilst the majority struggle. But all that requires an imagination, and currently much political thinking is constrained within boundaries and rules which are treated as absolute when in fact, many of them do not exist.
Yes, the irony of paying one of the best minimum wages in the world and yet it being wholly inadequate has been a problem for a long time. There's obviously no fix all solution and the fix, if it's even possible, will take decades most likely and I imagine we'll continue to see quite high emigration figures of EU nationals/Brits for a while.
AI can be good and bad, we don't really know if it will net add/take away jobs yet - the gov can somewhat dictate this as well - but I assume some of the NWF is heading in that direction. I guess that issue remains wherever you go in the world.
As well as the realisation that money received as benefits gets spent and filters through the local economy rather than locked up in savings. It's not just wasted.
Yeah. I do agree with the first point really. Always takes me back to my main political view which is that we've started trying to improve things long term and all parries essentially are in fire fighting mode.
I have seen, perhaps anecdotally, it's having an impact. I work quite a lot in FE colleges and there's a clear reduction in traditional entry level jobs. A lot of colleges are also seeing a massive increase in over 30s wanting to retrain but there's very little funding available to teach them
Yep.
The fecking nerve...
A lot of that benefit money presumably goes to utilities, Tesco/Asda etc, rather than into the local economy per se beyond making the supermarkets viable though.
Also we may have one of the highest minimum wages, but salaries for doctors, nurses, teachers and the like are shite and tax so high, hence so many are leaving.
To maintain the 20:60:20 ratios, the focus has to be on the middle [60] ... these are the people who keep the wheels turning, if the importance of the 60% is not maintained, no re-imagining of the economy will work.
Yes, imagination is required, to enact fundamental changes in our 'constitutional laws' that are based on precedence, in particular those affecting land/wealth... these are not imagined constraints they are real.
The main areas that effect the middle 60%, where investment is needed;
Accommodation- free up land, an end to nibyism; build/reclaim houses at a hitherto unprecedented rate with affordability/accessibility the key issue.
Employment - A new social contract giving employees and employers rights that protect both.
Education - A total overall of the the system from pre-school to tertiary curriculum; investment in modern schools; operational, design, building and maintenance. Emphasis on lifetime learning/retraining.
NHS/Welfare- joined up system of provision, that reflects outcomes and cost constraints, with
20 to 30 years to implement fully, with pre-planning that includes for effective on-going as well as final evaluation, of each and every project.
Would be great, but unfortunately cannot see it happening, especially as Labour is going to waste its massive overall majority (which could make it happen) in parliament, with internecine warfare.
Yeah with Ai it seems more about bad luck vs good luck in terms of which jobs are getting taken over. The problem right now is it's hard to predict which industries will be the winners from Ai - it seems like teaching, nurses, tradesmen, cleaners for sure will be in high demand and in many cases will see massive earning uplifts, same for jobs like chefs or social workers etc. But people who have just graduated or are leaving school now are a bit in limbo especially if its in something like data science or customer service lower level jobs.
Buy some cheap land somewhere with a good climate as a failsafe though, we might all be fecked.
We don’t need any more houses, and we need to stop building on green spaces.
We know that we are going to decline as a population, and we have millions of empty properties around the UK.
It’s not NIMBY not to want more and more people crammed into the same space.
Esp. with more people working from home, we need to spread out. We don’t need more high rise shitty flats, that just put more and more pressure on resources.
A quick reminder that the police are still to be held to account in my hometown for the unlawful death of Sheku Bayoh eleven years ago.