By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
As the article says, she’s rightly nervous of doing so. They’ll be even more toast than they’ll be already if she does this. Worse than that, it plays into the Tory lies and would set the party back as a whole potentially decades.
The only income tax change that should be made is increasing it by 2p and then dropping NI by 2p, and do this every year until NI is gone. No real change for most people but evens out the burden, and it would bring in a decent amount extra.
Folk keep forgetting the huge cost of Covid. Something like 450 billion pounds! Which is an astronomical sum. We have somehow got to reduce the debt mountain if any government is to succeed. Currently close to 100% of GDP. That’s insane to me, yet Reeves wants to borrow more??
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 00:25 - Oct 26 with 698 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 23:55 - Oct 25 by BlueForYou
Folk keep forgetting the huge cost of Covid. Something like 450 billion pounds! Which is an astronomical sum. We have somehow got to reduce the debt mountain if any government is to succeed. Currently close to 100% of GDP. That’s insane to me, yet Reeves wants to borrow more??
Believe it or not (you likely won't) but, investment is the best way to reduce debt.
When the labour government came to power in 1945 debt was well over 100% of GDP. They created the NHS, built 100s of thousands of council housing and generally invested in the UK (not going to pretend it was all smelling of roses, it wasn't). When they lost power, the debit to GDP was slashed, not despite doing these things, but because they did those things.
Forward to 2010 the exact opposite was done by David Cameron (austerity and a huge transfer of money from poor to rich), what happened. Stagnation and a huge increase of debt.
A great example of this was science investment. Before the cuts, it was estimated that for every £1 the UK government invested in science, that investment got £1.70 back. Now, how stupid would you have to be to cut government investment in science? Guess what the Tories did? Yep, cut investment in science. Utter ideological madness to do that.
Austerity doesn't work, quite the opposite. If you can't see that even after almost 20 years of economic stagnation for the majority of us, you have your head in the sand.
4
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 06:48 - Oct 26 with 644 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 00:25 - Oct 26 by Bugs
Believe it or not (you likely won't) but, investment is the best way to reduce debt.
When the labour government came to power in 1945 debt was well over 100% of GDP. They created the NHS, built 100s of thousands of council housing and generally invested in the UK (not going to pretend it was all smelling of roses, it wasn't). When they lost power, the debit to GDP was slashed, not despite doing these things, but because they did those things.
Forward to 2010 the exact opposite was done by David Cameron (austerity and a huge transfer of money from poor to rich), what happened. Stagnation and a huge increase of debt.
A great example of this was science investment. Before the cuts, it was estimated that for every £1 the UK government invested in science, that investment got £1.70 back. Now, how stupid would you have to be to cut government investment in science? Guess what the Tories did? Yep, cut investment in science. Utter ideological madness to do that.
Austerity doesn't work, quite the opposite. If you can't see that even after almost 20 years of economic stagnation for the majority of us, you have your head in the sand.
The weirdest thing about these "government is a household" types is that they reject the ideas of British economists like Lord Keynes (who advocated spending despite actual monetary constraints unlike todays fiat system) and accept the Freshwater/Saltwater economics from the US. They then lecture you on patriotism.
Zack Polanski is doing a superb job of educating people that resource constraints are the barrier not monetary. Who consumes the most resources? Time to use science to inform policy and allow economics to be totally reformed to something sensible.
As an aside, there was somebody talking about the OBR's productivity forecasts which has been wrong every year since it was formed. This isn't science in any regard and if you ask a mainstream economist to explain productivity their answer is totally devoid of any understanding of thermodynamics.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 07:37 - Oct 26 with 614 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 00:25 - Oct 26 by Bugs
Believe it or not (you likely won't) but, investment is the best way to reduce debt.
When the labour government came to power in 1945 debt was well over 100% of GDP. They created the NHS, built 100s of thousands of council housing and generally invested in the UK (not going to pretend it was all smelling of roses, it wasn't). When they lost power, the debit to GDP was slashed, not despite doing these things, but because they did those things.
Forward to 2010 the exact opposite was done by David Cameron (austerity and a huge transfer of money from poor to rich), what happened. Stagnation and a huge increase of debt.
A great example of this was science investment. Before the cuts, it was estimated that for every £1 the UK government invested in science, that investment got £1.70 back. Now, how stupid would you have to be to cut government investment in science? Guess what the Tories did? Yep, cut investment in science. Utter ideological madness to do that.
Austerity doesn't work, quite the opposite. If you can't see that even after almost 20 years of economic stagnation for the majority of us, you have your head in the sand.
Part of that though was the post-war boom, literally rebuilding a country. Whilst it’s true that government spending puts money into the economy, the problem is funding it, if the defect gets too large the sovereign debt rating continue to plummet as they have twice in the last 5 years. UK borrowing costs have already risen to historic levels as a result. Then you lose access to borrowing. That’s what followed in the 1970s as the deficit became to large, requiring IMF help and becoming one of the poorest economies versus our peers. There is talk that this could happen to France given their perilous fiscal situation and weak government.
I’d also argue that we aren’t in austerity anymore (how do you define it), UK government spending as a percentage of GDP is largely back to the Blair Labour government era. The cost of borrowing means taxes are going up without even putting investment into the economy. Individual tax obligations are also at pretty much record levels outside of the post war period. There are far deeper structural reasons that have held UK growth back, e.g losing skilled manufacturing jobs and replacing them with lower paid retail and services jobs, lower pay means less tax, less disposable income. The quality of jobs created means that even record population growth has seen the economy shrink per capita. Regional inequality means (aside from London), we are poorer than the poorest US state, and losing access to the second biggest economy in the world (single market).
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 09:57 - Oct 26 with 564 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 07:37 - Oct 26 by SuperKieranMcKenna
Part of that though was the post-war boom, literally rebuilding a country. Whilst it’s true that government spending puts money into the economy, the problem is funding it, if the defect gets too large the sovereign debt rating continue to plummet as they have twice in the last 5 years. UK borrowing costs have already risen to historic levels as a result. Then you lose access to borrowing. That’s what followed in the 1970s as the deficit became to large, requiring IMF help and becoming one of the poorest economies versus our peers. There is talk that this could happen to France given their perilous fiscal situation and weak government.
I’d also argue that we aren’t in austerity anymore (how do you define it), UK government spending as a percentage of GDP is largely back to the Blair Labour government era. The cost of borrowing means taxes are going up without even putting investment into the economy. Individual tax obligations are also at pretty much record levels outside of the post war period. There are far deeper structural reasons that have held UK growth back, e.g losing skilled manufacturing jobs and replacing them with lower paid retail and services jobs, lower pay means less tax, less disposable income. The quality of jobs created means that even record population growth has seen the economy shrink per capita. Regional inequality means (aside from London), we are poorer than the poorest US state, and losing access to the second biggest economy in the world (single market).
But going back to Bugs point about investing in science, if you do that then more skilled jobs are created (albeit of a different type) and the cost to government borrowing is eventually outweighed by the taxation on increased earning and higher exports.
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 09:57 - Oct 26 by WeWereZombies
But going back to Bugs point about investing in science, if you do that then more skilled jobs are created (albeit of a different type) and the cost to government borrowing is eventually outweighed by the taxation on increased earning and higher exports.
I guess it depends if the markets buy into the maths on that - it would take an awful lot of science jobs to repay the £100bn+ annually repayments, let alone the ~£3trn of debt we already have. So far they’ve shown little appetite for more UK debt. We’ve been borrowing record amounts and shown very little growth in real terms.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:40 - Oct 26 with 530 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:35 - Oct 26 by SuperKieranMcKenna
I guess it depends if the markets buy into the maths on that - it would take an awful lot of science jobs to repay the £100bn+ annually repayments, let alone the ~£3trn of debt we already have. So far they’ve shown little appetite for more UK debt. We’ve been borrowing record amounts and shown very little growth in real terms.
Which markets are you thinking of ? And how significantly can they contribute to the well being of our four nations ?
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 00:25 - Oct 26 by Bugs
Believe it or not (you likely won't) but, investment is the best way to reduce debt.
When the labour government came to power in 1945 debt was well over 100% of GDP. They created the NHS, built 100s of thousands of council housing and generally invested in the UK (not going to pretend it was all smelling of roses, it wasn't). When they lost power, the debit to GDP was slashed, not despite doing these things, but because they did those things.
Forward to 2010 the exact opposite was done by David Cameron (austerity and a huge transfer of money from poor to rich), what happened. Stagnation and a huge increase of debt.
A great example of this was science investment. Before the cuts, it was estimated that for every £1 the UK government invested in science, that investment got £1.70 back. Now, how stupid would you have to be to cut government investment in science? Guess what the Tories did? Yep, cut investment in science. Utter ideological madness to do that.
Austerity doesn't work, quite the opposite. If you can't see that even after almost 20 years of economic stagnation for the majority of us, you have your head in the sand.
it is a bit simplistic to make it a Labour v Tory thing especially post war. Debt to GDP started to fall as GDP rose, it was not a case of the spending taps suddenly being turned off. Debt to GDP started falling from 1946 and continued the pattern as the UK recovered for a couple of decades. It was not as a result of economic theory per se but acts that needed to be done as part of recovery from a world war and was supported by successive governments. The council house roll out alone took 2-3 decades. Marshall plan also helped hugely. To judge the Cameron governemnt with no insight given to the economic mess and the massive private and public indebtednesss he inherited from Labour (not all the fault of Labour, much of it was a world situation) is not painting the full picture.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:06 - Oct 26 with 510 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 10:40 - Oct 26 by WeWereZombies
Which markets are you thinking of ? And how significantly can they contribute to the well being of our four nations ?
Well most of our borrowing is from gilts, which is getting more and more expensive as our debt increases yet growth slows. As our main source of borrowing I’d say they are very significant. We could of course increase QE, but there’s good evidence that’s been a contributing factor to inflation, and has had little benefit to growth either int he UK or Eurozone. France has borrowed heavily, even renationalising energy infrastructure, but is in an even worse position than the UK.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:11 - Oct 26 with 502 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:06 - Oct 26 by SuperKieranMcKenna
Well most of our borrowing is from gilts, which is getting more and more expensive as our debt increases yet growth slows. As our main source of borrowing I’d say they are very significant. We could of course increase QE, but there’s good evidence that’s been a contributing factor to inflation, and has had little benefit to growth either int he UK or Eurozone. France has borrowed heavily, even renationalising energy infrastructure, but is in an even worse position than the UK.
I think you are taking too narrow a view, not that the effects are easy to measure once you plump for getting the whole picture. But so much of our wealth has been driven by innovation that scrimping on it seems ill-judged to me.
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:11 - Oct 26 by WeWereZombies
I think you are taking too narrow a view, not that the effects are easy to measure once you plump for getting the whole picture. But so much of our wealth has been driven by innovation that scrimping on it seems ill-judged to me.
I’m just taking the market view that western economies are being strangled by debt, borrowing more and more for no growth just seems like more of the same. Labour should be encouraging private sector investment in the economy but they’ve really damaged SME’s. The US has a precarious debt situation but has grown through innovation despite the current regime. The UK and Europe are miles behind in innovation. I don’t disagree that we do need to improve education, but increasing our debt is really dragging, we’re spending more on debt servicing which is now in the states’ top 5 expenditures.
*in summary we are borrowing huge amounts, state spending has returned to pre austerity levels, and the metrics aren’t looking positive even taking a longer view. Not helped by Reeves constantly missing her self imposed targets.
[Post edited 26 Oct 11:45]
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 16:54 - Oct 26 with 421 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 09:08 - Oct 24 by bluelagos
Yet suggest we should ditch the triple lock and I suspect same poster would likely have a meltdown.
Pensioners (not all obs) really are some of the most entitled, clueless and selfish knobs around. Had all the benefits known to man (Free higher education, cheap houses and FS pensions) and then lecture the youngsters of today about how "easy" it is ffs.
I'm out...no point getting wound up :-)
It's just another ruse to put young against old. When I was bringing up a young family it wasn't as easy as some would have you believe. I used to shop at shops like Shoppers Paradise, if anything a bit down market from Aldi or Lidl. My ex wife used to make clothes for the kids. We hardly ever went out and when I eventually got a mortgage in 1981 and a better job I worked a 72 hour week for months on end. I used to see pensioners with nice to have things in shopping baskets and never ever did I suggest they should have or were not entitled to it. After all these were people who like myself now worked all their lives. I worked for in excess of 50 years. I brought up my kids, never asked or expected help from the government. I paid my taxes as I still am despite my income being not much more than a person on Universal Credit and Pips. I saved to have what I have got and only spend what I can afford. As far as the Triple Lock is concerned I have no problem with the government doing away with it as long as we get an inflation increase of RPI (Retail Price Index) currently it's wage inflation, 2.5% or CPI (Consumer Price Index) whichever is greater. But I don't see why I should be paying for people who have contributed nothing to this Country or able bodied people on benefits. It's a different story for those that are unable to work, they should be supported.
2
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 08:29 - Oct 27 with 317 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 16:54 - Oct 26 by OldFart71
It's just another ruse to put young against old. When I was bringing up a young family it wasn't as easy as some would have you believe. I used to shop at shops like Shoppers Paradise, if anything a bit down market from Aldi or Lidl. My ex wife used to make clothes for the kids. We hardly ever went out and when I eventually got a mortgage in 1981 and a better job I worked a 72 hour week for months on end. I used to see pensioners with nice to have things in shopping baskets and never ever did I suggest they should have or were not entitled to it. After all these were people who like myself now worked all their lives. I worked for in excess of 50 years. I brought up my kids, never asked or expected help from the government. I paid my taxes as I still am despite my income being not much more than a person on Universal Credit and Pips. I saved to have what I have got and only spend what I can afford. As far as the Triple Lock is concerned I have no problem with the government doing away with it as long as we get an inflation increase of RPI (Retail Price Index) currently it's wage inflation, 2.5% or CPI (Consumer Price Index) whichever is greater. But I don't see why I should be paying for people who have contributed nothing to this Country or able bodied people on benefits. It's a different story for those that are unable to work, they should be supported.
I’ve been receiving the basic state pension for almost 15 years but feel changes are needed. I wouldn’t want to do away with the triple lock completely. Pensions should increase by 2.5% or by the average percentage of the other two elements. For example if wages increase by 4.5% and inflation by 3.5% then the pension rise would be 4%.;
It makes no sense to look at increases in the two for different months.
There are other wrongs if you are on the basic pension while triple lock applies to the basic amount it doesn’t apply to any additional state pension earned .
Anyone who becomes eligible for the New State Pension is entitled to go into the old scheme if the total pension earned would be higher than the New State Pension
Each year the gap between the two pensions is getting wider which, whatever way you look at it, isn’t fair remember not all older pensioners have the benefit of final salary schemes..
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 08:29 - Oct 27 by Pinewoodblue
I’ve been receiving the basic state pension for almost 15 years but feel changes are needed. I wouldn’t want to do away with the triple lock completely. Pensions should increase by 2.5% or by the average percentage of the other two elements. For example if wages increase by 4.5% and inflation by 3.5% then the pension rise would be 4%.;
It makes no sense to look at increases in the two for different months.
There are other wrongs if you are on the basic pension while triple lock applies to the basic amount it doesn’t apply to any additional state pension earned .
Anyone who becomes eligible for the New State Pension is entitled to go into the old scheme if the total pension earned would be higher than the New State Pension
Each year the gap between the two pensions is getting wider which, whatever way you look at it, isn’t fair remember not all older pensioners have the benefit of final salary schemes..
I am on the old SP which as you say the gap between new and old gets wider every year. A few years before my official retirement age which was 65 it was then a prerequisite that you had to have paid into N.I. for 44 years to get the full State Pension. Now it's 35 years. I am lucky in a sense that I get a Company pension alongside my SP. The downside is that due to the personal allowance being frozen by Sunak at £12,570 until 2028 I pay more tax each year. This financial year I received an increase of £147 on my Company Pension, but am required to pay £250 more in tax due to the SP going up as well. Back in 2022 I think the wage inflation according to the then Tory government was 6.1%, so they cancelled the Triple Lock and pensioners got a 3.1% increase although inflation rose to 11%. It was strange because the SP is set in September of the previous year and August inflation was 3.4% and Octobers was 4.3% so I believe the figures were fiddled as it can be deemed monthly price inflation is, as no way are prices only increasing by 3.8%. As a pensioner it is difficult in the current climate as no one wants to seem to be greedy. We know that many are struggling. But we must also consider fairness that is shown to people who worked all their lives. Whilst the need to help oneself is necessary due to governments inability to do anything to see what would happen when the Baby Boomers and beyond retired we find ourselves in the situation where some believe that the State Pension is doomed. Why I say governments have sat on their hands and done little is because they have had the data via Births and Deaths and carried out Census so they should have been aware of the consequences way in advance. But due to short term policies they have all failed.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 15:20 - Oct 27 with 199 views
I would happily see an increase in income tax, but I would also increase the tax-free limits so that lower earners are better off and hopefully provide a greater incentive for people to work.
We should crack down on the large corporations that do not pay their tax in the UK but overseas.
I would freeze benefits as well. They are not affordable and we cannot keep on paying them at an increasing level.
1
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 16:57 - Oct 27 with 172 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 15:20 - Oct 27 by little_boy_blue
I would happily see an increase in income tax, but I would also increase the tax-free limits so that lower earners are better off and hopefully provide a greater incentive for people to work.
We should crack down on the large corporations that do not pay their tax in the UK but overseas.
I would freeze benefits as well. They are not affordable and we cannot keep on paying them at an increasing level.
The benefits bill is largely static as a proportion of GDP.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 17:34 - Oct 27 with 140 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 11:42 - Oct 26 by SuperKieranMcKenna
I’m just taking the market view that western economies are being strangled by debt, borrowing more and more for no growth just seems like more of the same. Labour should be encouraging private sector investment in the economy but they’ve really damaged SME’s. The US has a precarious debt situation but has grown through innovation despite the current regime. The UK and Europe are miles behind in innovation. I don’t disagree that we do need to improve education, but increasing our debt is really dragging, we’re spending more on debt servicing which is now in the states’ top 5 expenditures.
*in summary we are borrowing huge amounts, state spending has returned to pre austerity levels, and the metrics aren’t looking positive even taking a longer view. Not helped by Reeves constantly missing her self imposed targets.
[Post edited 26 Oct 11:45]
Wouldn’t the markets be reasonably ok with borrowing to invest? It the large forecasted shortfalls and need to borrow just to cover basic expenditure that seems to freak them out (e.g. the response to Truss/Kwarteng’s plans).
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 17:34 - Oct 27 by Swansea_Blue
Wouldn’t the markets be reasonably ok with borrowing to invest? It the large forecasted shortfalls and need to borrow just to cover basic expenditure that seems to freak them out (e.g. the response to Truss/Kwarteng’s plans).
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 21:52 - Oct 23 by HampBlue
Tax wealth not income.
I do not understand how this message is not “mainstream”. Young people earning 60,70,80k are not “rich”. Especially considering these people probably have student loans, monster mortgages and getting taxed enough.
Meanwhile, people are hoarding wealth, making us all poorer in the process.
It is strange as I know the narrative around these "rich people" is that they'll move their wealth elsewhere if you tax them more. However, when Liz Truss did what she did, on that day I was driving home and there were a few of these Rich guys on the radio (I think 5live) saying they're happy to pay the extra 2-3% etc to help the country.
I suspect most decent people would.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 18:44 - Oct 27 with 67 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 18:22 - Oct 27 by Vaughan8
It is strange as I know the narrative around these "rich people" is that they'll move their wealth elsewhere if you tax them more. However, when Liz Truss did what she did, on that day I was driving home and there were a few of these Rich guys on the radio (I think 5live) saying they're happy to pay the extra 2-3% etc to help the country.
I suspect most decent people would.
I suspect they are happy to pay an extra 2 or 3 percent of their annual income, whether they would like a 2 or 3 percent hit on their total wealth, might be different. You will always get champagne socialist virtue-signallers.
0
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 19:11 - Oct 27 with 43 views
“Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge on 17:44 - Oct 27 by WeWereZombies
lol, yes they’re certainly easy targets. I went out with a girl once who moved to a City firm after graduating. Her colleagues were the biggest bunch of entitled wangers I’ve ever had the misfortune to meet. In defence of market traders, they may have been City bankers but I can’t remember. Not that there’s a lot of daylight between the two from what I’ve seen.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
