The Labour Government

[BrianW]

Getting people to upskill is never easy as it usually involves a major training commitment, potentially upheaval of home life and hours worked, and more importantly, a commitment from employers to not just trawl for the very highest qualified when filling vacancies.

It also involves significant investment from the state and/or private companies. Something we have been reluctant to finance, certainly since the days of Thatcher.

We can't even be arsed to train sufficient doctors, nurses and dentists! Though, inexplicably, we have far more accountants per head of population than is usual in Europe.

The British always seem to want a cheap or free solution, and then moan like fuck about the consequences.

 

[TinFoilHat]

It also involves significant investment from the state and/or private companies. Something we have been reluctant to finance, certainly since the days of Thatcher.

We can't even be arsed to train sufficient doctors, nurses and dentists! Though, inexplicably, we have far more accountants per head of population than is usual in Europe.

The British always seem to want a cheap or free solution, and then moan like fuck about the consequences.

Nailed it.

This is definitely the business model I work in.

New tech? "Here's a piece of paper for you to work it out yourself, and if you fuck up you will be disciplined as recieving this means you agreed and are qualified in using said tech."

That's is the attitude of of my senior managers.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The purpose of asylum process isn't to reduce immigration, it's to protect those in need of protection.

You miss the point entirely. The purpose of the 1 in 1 out system is to reduce immigration.

Poor David Milliband will be beside himself once he's worked out its carbon footprint. I wouldn't blame him if decided to glue himself, naked, to a wind turbine today.

That would be great to see :-) We could throw rotten fruit at him every time the the rotor passes by.

How has the value of the state pension been reduced?

I didn't say it has been. I was responding to the suggestion that a 4% increase (which is actually less than the true rate of RPI - RPIH of 4.2%) is not a "huge increase". We should not IMO be looking to erode the value of the state pension over time, given it is already at a pitifully low level compared to most comparable economies.

 

[moomba]

You miss the point entirely. The purpose of the 1 in 1 out system is to reduce immigration.

The purpose of 1 in 1 out is for the government to look tough on immigration to stop criticism from the likes of Farage who says they're not.

 

[hampshireblue]

Heard on SkyNews this morning before leaving for work but there wasn’t a great deal of detail.

You got a link?

No, but total looks about £41bn over 5 years.

 

[metalblue]

Which PM could have such a good diplomatic relationship with Trump and all the European leaders like Starmer does?

Farage? Ed Davey? Badenoch? Corbyn?..

It is an area this government has been strong in. Much to their credit given the fractured relationships they inherited.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We can't even be arsed to train sufficient doctors, nurses and dentists! Though, inexplicably, we have far more accountants per head of population than is usual in Europe.

We have more trained doctors than we have spaces for them.

 

[hampshireblue]

The purpose of 1 in 1 out is for the government to look tough on immigration to stop criticism from the likes of Farage who says they're not.

Come on moomba, keep up. You should know by now that Chippy is an expert on everything depite this below:

The UK's "One In, One Out" (or "One-in-One-out") immigration policy with France is designed to reduce illegal immigration, specifically small boat crossings across the English Channel. The goal is to deter migrants from making dangerous journeys by removing them to France, while allowing a legally documented, but equal number of asylum seekers with legitimate ties to the UK to enter the country. This scheme aims to disrupt the business model of human trafficking gangs by creating a new pathway for some legal immigration and by enabling the return of those who arrive illegally.

 

[Vic]

I didn't say it has been. I was responding to the suggestion that a 4% increase (which is actually less than the true rate of RPI - RPIH of 4.2%) is not a "huge increase". We should not IMO be looking to erode the value of the state pension over time, given it is already at a pitifully low level compared to most comparable economies.

What you said was, "People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension". As the government has not been punishing people by that, you'll forgive me for thinking you were claiming it as historic fact.

Unless you know different, the pension has increased relative to earnings (to 30.2%). But you don't want to pay the higher tax to keep that going. See the IFS: "increasing the state pension to be at 33% of average earnings in 2050 would cost an additional £15 billion per year in today’s terms (about 0.5% of national income), compared with keeping the state pension at its current share of average earnings". And see this: "Retaining the triple lock while raising the state pension age would hit poorer people more because the loss of a year of state pension income is more important for those with lower life expectancy (which poorer people tend to have), as they spend fewer years above the state pension age. On the other hand, those with a higher life expectancy benefit relatively more from the triple lock, as they are more likely to be receiving a generously indexed state pension in their 90s and beyond."

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/pensions-review-final-recommendations

 

[hampshireblue]

We have more trained doctors than we have spaces for them.

No, we have more trained doctors than the budgets allow the Trusts to employ. As a senior NHS manager said to me a few weeks ago, "we would never turn any qualified staff away if we had an unlimited budget". Well they have and they do unfortunately.

 

[hampshireblue]

What you said was, "People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension". As the government has not been punishing people by that, you'll forgive me for thinking you were claiming it as historic fact.

Unless you know different, the pension has increased relative to earnings (to 30.2%). But you don't want to pay the higher tax to do something about it. See the IFS: "increasing the state pension to be at 33% of average earnings in 2050 would cost an additional £15 billion per year in today’s terms (about 0.5% of national income), compared with keeping the state pension at its current share of average earnings". And see this: "Retaining the triple lock while raising the state pension age would hit poorer people more because the loss of a year of state pension income is more important for those with lower life expectancy (which poorer people tend to have), as they spend fewer years above the state pension age. On the other hand, those with a higher life expectancy benefit relatively more from the triple lock, as they are more likely to be receiving a generously indexed state pension in their 90s and beyond."

Bang on!

 

[Kompany Car]

You surely perceive though that taxes feel high because you're getting nothing back and not because they're so high that it's affecting anything? If we paid tons of tax and everything was amazing then we wouldn't care. That's how it is in the Scandinavian countries, they do pay a ton of tax but everything works so everybody is happy.

We have mid-tax levels but years of low spending have meant that everything we get back is now rubbish. How can you pay tax towards the NHS for example and have to wait years for elective surgery? It's the worst return ever and I don't see how lower taxes are the answer. Taxation is not the right question, spending levels are the right question.

Reeves has the same mentality and obsession with tax because she's trying to increase taxes to make the economy grow by maybe 0.1% whilst everything else stays crap. It's an accountants vanity project and most people hate accountants.

There is definitely some confusion when people talk about "Scandinavian" countries and taxation. Its a bit of a fools errand to compare them but where the main difference lies in not what those who earn high salaries pay but instead the basic rate of tax.

Norway for instance has a basic rate of 22%, the maximum that what we would call an additional rate tax payer (someone earning over £125k) would be paying is the basic rate plus 17.7% so 39.7% not 45% as it is in the UK.

Sweden has no inheritance tax. Income tax is a municipal tax ranging from 29% to 35% depending on where you live then a high earner tax of a further 20%. You also pay a ringfenced 7% for your state pension. Compared to the UK, everyone pays more and those earning over around £47k, significantly more. Importantly however the state pension is not a flat figure but instead is based on how much you earned whilst working. Up to a capped value, the larger your salary was when working, the larger your pension will be in retirement, hence there is more a sense of getting out more of what you put in (in a financial sense).
When it comes to the equivalent of council tax its based upon the value of your home and charged at 0.75% but capped at around 10000SEK so about £800. Therefore less than the UK.

 

[threespires]

Great news today with massive investment by Nvidia and Microsoft announced . I'm staggered by the silence from the usual moaners!! Well, not really, as it just proves that even if an economic miracle were to happen tomorrow, many would want it to fail so they could justify their political position.

At one level I agree with you re the news though I am very concerned about our governments ability to control their dealings with American 'big tech' , partly because I've not seen any government so far be able to appropriately and effectively regulate them and their power and it's going to take concerted international cooperation to achieve which there's probably less rather than more incentive for the UK government to try and achieve.

That said, it's very much the kind of thing we should be discussing instead of this obsession with immigration which ironically these tech firms have helped to amplify beyond all rationality.

 

[Chippy_boy]

What you said was, "People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension". As the government has not been punishing people by that, you'll forgive me for thinking you were claiming it as historic fact.

Unless you know different, the pension has increased relative to earnings (to 30.2%). But you don't want to pay the higher tax to keep that going. See the IFS: "increasing the state pension to be at 33% of average earnings in 2050 would cost an additional £15 billion per year in today’s terms (about 0.5% of national income), compared with keeping the state pension at its current share of average earnings". And see this: "Retaining the triple lock while raising the state pension age would hit poorer people more because the loss of a year of state pension income is more important for those with lower life expectancy (which poorer people tend to have), as they spend fewer years above the state pension age. On the other hand, those with a higher life expectancy benefit relatively more from the triple lock, as they are more likely to be receiving a generously indexed state pension in their 90s and beyond."

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/pensions-review-final-recommendations

Whatever. Just another thing to add to the endless list you and I disagree upon.

Bizarre that me a right wing capitalist should be saying we should not be going after pensioners to fuel our governments profligate spending and borrowing. But you - on the far left - are happy to do so.

Suggest Labour don't put that in the next manifesto either.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The purpose of 1 in 1 out is for the government to look tough on immigration to stop criticism from the likes of Farage who says they're not.

Probably true. Not going to work, is it. Instead of conning the public as you suggest, it's merely making the government look ever more hilarious.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Doing a great job of showing just how not authoritarian they are.

Four men have been arrested after images of Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were projected on to Windsor Castle on Tuesday, as the US president arrived in the UK for a state visit.

They were arrested on suspicion of "malicious communications following a public stunt in Windsor" and remained in custody, Thames Valley Police said.

I'm sure Musk will be all over this one to complain about an awful infringement on freedom of speech. Or not.

 

[hampshireblue]

At one level I agree with you re the news though I am very concerned about our governments ability to control their dealings with American 'big tech' , partly because I've not seen any government so far be able to appropriately and effectively regulate them and their power and it's going to take concerted international cooperation to achieve which there's probably less rather than more incentive for the UK government to try and achieve.

That said, it's very much the kind of thing we should be discussing instead of this obsession with immigration which ironically these tech firms have helped to amplify beyond all rationality.

I agree. Although the jobs are a good thing, the big challenge will be ensuring that at least some of the profits are kept within the UK and that appropriate taxes are paid on those profits.

 

[hampshireblue]

There is definitely some confusion when people talk about "Scandinavian" countries and taxation. Its a bit of a fools errand to compare them but where the main difference lies in not what those who earn high salaries pay but instead the basic rate of tax.

Norway for instance has a basic rate of 22%, the maximum that what we would call an additional rate tax payer (someone earning over £125k) would be paying is the basic rate plus 17.7% so 39.7% not 45% as it is in the UK.

Sweden has no inheritance tax. Income tax is a municipal tax ranging from 29% to 35% depending on where you live then a high earner tax of a further 20%. You also pay a ringfenced 7% for your state pension. Compared to the UK, everyone pays more and those earning over around £47k, significantly more. Importantly however the state pension is not a flat figure but instead is based on how much you earned whilst working. Up to a capped value, the larger your salary was when working, the larger your pension will be in retirement, hence there is more a sense of getting out more of what you put in (in a financial sense).
When it comes to the equivalent of council tax its based upon the value of your home and charged at 0.75% but capped at around 10000SEK so about £800. Therefore less than the UK.

Thanks for some excellent factual background.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Mandy doing her best to avoid the questions on Trump, genocide and the Tommeh March on Sky News.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Great news today with massive investment by Nvidia and Microsoft announced . I'm staggered by the silence from the usual moaners!! Well, not really, as it just proves that even if an economic miracle were to happen tomorrow, many would want it to fail so they could justify their political position.

Interesting to see you heralding a key Brexit dividend.

Does this mean that you and the usual moaners on here will now stop the misguided claims about the economy being some improbably large percentage smaller because of the decision to leave the EU?