UK Politics General Discussion

[BarryZola]

I should really watch that film at some point. The long-term economically inactive should also be warehoused too (obviously you would be free to live with family in their homes at their cost if agreeable). Career training on site etc. Centralise all these things instead of paying for it all individually. Big savings for the treasury and free up swathes of housing making it more affordable for working people who want to start families.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I should really watch that film at some point. The long-term economically inactive should also be warehoused too (obviously you would be free to live with family in their homes at their cost if agreeable). Career training on site etc. Centralise all these things instead of paying for it all individually. Big savings for the treasury and free up swathes of housing making it more affordable for working people who want to start families.

I may be a little groggy this morning, but are you seriously suggesting that we introduce indentured servitude, aka state sanctioned slavery, for those who are long term unemployed?

 

[rob666]

Well within range at the moment goosey...

What about another suggestion I heard on the talk radio in the night...
Compulsory sterilisation unless employed for at least three years.

Back to sensibility.
The time is coming where we need to means test the old age pension.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Double post, whip me.

There is a lot of noise and fury being thrown around here. Whilst it's not a silver / magical budget that can please everyone, let's actually look at the details and the history of what has been announced before we all descend into a frenzy of demanding the return of the party that crashed the economy in the first place.

Tax on electric cars which will discourage people to buy them and basically make it impossible for anyone without home charging to even consider it...

...I would have the tories back in a heartbeat.

You might want to check your history books, or at least the Autumn Statement 2022.

The decision to apply Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) to electric vehicles from April 2025 was announced by Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Chancellor. This is a Tory policy, implemented on the Tory timeline. Bringing them back "in a heartbeat" would not change this policy, as they are the ones who wrote it into law.

Electric car drivers must pay tax from 2025

Motoring groups, including the AA, warned the move would reduce the incentive to switch to electric vehicles.

www.bbc.co.uk

As for the Expensive Car Supplement (ECS) exemption ending? Also a Conservative policy.

The Conservative government's policy aimed to end the VED exemption for electric vehicles, making them subject to the standard VED rates and the £40,000 ECS threshold, just like internal combustion engine cars. This was widely criticised for disproportionately affecting the EV market, as many mainstream electric cars cost over this amount.

The ECS threshold for zero emission cars only is increasing from £40,000 to £50,000, and will apply to vehicles registered from 1st April 2025 onwards, but will take effect from 1st April 2026. The lower £40,000 threshold will continue to apply to all petrol, diesel, and hybrid models. This change is designed to make a wider range of new electric vehicles more accessible and reduce the impact of the ECS on EV buyers.

It is also worth noting that VED pays for the maintenance of the road network (in theory). Electric vehicles are heavier than their fossil fuel counterparts, causing more wear and tear on the road surface. It is only fair that they contribute to the upkeep of the infrastructure they use.

And all this so they can pay people to have more children

And the lifting of the two child benefit cap is ridiculous, we should be discouraging people from having large families, not encouraging it.

You claim the UK population is growing. It is, but primarily due to net migration (which yesterday was to have fallen dramatically too). The birth rate among the UK born population has fallen to 1.49 children per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

If you want to secure the future of the State Pension (which you seem very concerned about regarding tax thresholds), you need a working age population to pay for it. You either import that labour, or you encourage people to have children. You cannot be against immigration and against supporting families to have children, unless you want the economy to collapse due to a demographic crisis.

Regarding your neighbours, anecdotal evidence is not data. The two child limit applied to the child element of Universal Credit and Tax Credits. Removing it is estimated to lift 250,000 children out of poverty immediately, and only cost £3 billion. 42% of people claiming Universal Credit are in work. They aren't "lazy scroungers". They are people on low incomes, often doing the essential jobs that keep society running.

Salary sacrifice changes will affect anyone that is putting in Additional Pension Contributions unless they are only putting in a very small extra amount.

Salary sacrifice for pensions were always a generous anomaly where employees saved on National Insurance contributions, in addition to Income Tax relief. Removing the NI relief component simply brings it in line with other forms of income. You still get the Income Tax relief (20% or 40%), which is the primary benefit. It's a technical correction to a loophole, not a raid on your pot.

Too scared to make the tough but simple decision to put income taxes up... ...Instead of trying to get a handle on our ever-ballooning welfare budget they're making it worse and it's totally and clearly unsustainable.

Freezing tax thresholds is putting income tax up. It is known as fiscal drag. As wages rise with inflation, more of your money falls into tax bands, or moves into the higher rate. It generates billions for the Treasury without ever having to announce a rate rise. It is the oldest trick in the book.

As for the "ballooning welfare budget", I will repeat myself until I am blue in the beak... The State Pension is the single largest component of the welfare budget. It costs over £130 billion a year. You cannot complain about the welfare budget "ballooning" whilst simultaneously defending the triple lock, which is the mechanism causing the ballooning.

What they don't tell you is that Ratable values are going up from April, in some cases significantly so. This will wipe out any and all benefits of the lower multipliers.

Rateable Values are reassessed periodically by the Valuation Office Agency to reflect changes in the property market. This happens regardless of who is in government or what the budget says. If the rental value of commercial property has gone up, the tax goes up.

The introduction of permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality, and leisure is a direct intervention to mitigate this. Without the lower multiplier, businesses would be facing the new Rateable Values at the old, higher tax rate.

Is it enough? Probably not for many, but blaming the budget for property values increasing is aiming at the wrong target.

Ultimately, this isn't a budget designed to win popularity contests. It's a budget designed to stop the rot. We have spent 14 years indulging in the fantasy that we can have Scandinavian level public services with American level taxation. The infrastructure is crumbling, the NHS is on its knees, and our prisons are full.

We also need to address the elephant in the room, or rather, the 52% of the room that voted to make us all collectively poorer. The fiscal constraints Rachel Reeves is operating under are not just the result of 14 years of Conservative austerity. They are the direct consequence of the long, slow puncture that is Brexit.

The OBR has repeatedly stated that our economy is 4% smaller than it would have been had we remained in the EU. In real terms, that 4% represents roughly £100 billion a year in lost output and £40 billion in lost tax revenue. That £40 billion alone would have filled the "black hole" twice over without needing to touch Employer's NI or freeze tax thresholds. We are currently paying the price for erecting trade barriers with our closest, largest and richest trading partners, while simultaneously ending freedom of movement for the skilled labour our economy desperately needs to grow.

You cannot vote to make the country poorer and then complain when the government has less money to spend. This budget is simply the bill for that particular act of economic self harm finally coming due.

Fixing all of this requires money. It requires boring, structural, long term decisions that don't fit neatly into a tabloid headline or a rage bait forum post. It might not be the budget we wanted, but after the chaotic fiscal experiments of recent years, it is almost certainly the budget we needed.

 

[BarryZola]

I may be a little groggy this morning, but are you seriously suggesting that we introduce indentured servitude, aka state sanctioned slavery, for those who are long term unemployed?

No, I was suggesting that instead of having hundreds of thousands of economically inactive people living in tax-payer funded family homes and getting their whole lifestyles paid for through benefits, that they be housed in very large complexes out of town or wherever (like blocks of flats or whatever) where their housing, food, job training etc is supplied for free until such a time where they are capable of taking a job out in the world and are able to pay their own way like the average working family. There would be recreation facilities and land etc. This would save a lot of money for the treasury compared with paying every individual person individual benefits and having them taking up lots of housing in communities that would then become available to working people wanting to start families. Obviously there would be nuances to work out which I'm sure you will point out but nothing that could not be overcome. I know it sounds a bit dystopian but I think whether people like it or not it's eventually where we'll end up. These people would not be incarcerated, they'd be free to live with family or friends out in society if they're willing to house them. However, the other option wouldn't be to be given their own home and a monthly equivalent to a wage for contributing nothing, it would be to live in one of these out of town centres where they get a chance to train and gain skills to get a career whilst simultaneously being provided with food, shelter and recreation.

 

[jon81uk]

You might want to check your history books, or at least the Autumn Statement 2022.

The decision to apply Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) to electric vehicles from April 2025 was announced by Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Chancellor. This is a Tory policy, implemented on the Tory timeline. Bringing them back "in a heartbeat" would not change this policy, as they are the ones who wrote it into law.

Electric car drivers must pay tax from 2025

Motoring groups, including the AA, warned the move would reduce the incentive to switch to electric vehicles.

www.bbc.co.uk

As for the Expensive Car Supplement (ECS) exemption ending? Also a Conservative policy.

The Conservative government's policy aimed to end the VED exemption for electric vehicles, making them subject to the standard VED rates and the £40,000 ECS threshold, just like internal combustion engine cars. This was widely criticised for disproportionately affecting the EV market, as many mainstream electric cars cost over this amount.

The ECS threshold for zero emission cars only is increasing from £40,000 to £50,000, and will apply to vehicles registered from 1st April 2025 onwards, but will take effect from 1st April 2026. The lower £40,000 threshold will continue to apply to all petrol, diesel, and hybrid models. This change is designed to make a wider range of new electric vehicles more accessible and reduce the impact of the ECS on EV buyers.

It is also worth noting that VED pays for the maintenance of the road network (in theory). Electric vehicles are heavier than their fossil fuel counterparts, causing more wear and tear on the road surface. It is only fair that they contribute to the upkeep of the infrastructure they use.

The tax on electric cars discussed in this budget and due to launch in 2028 is nothing to do with VED, it is a per mile charge intended to replace fuel duty for vehicles not currently paying fuel duty.

Electric vehicle owners to face pay-per-mile tax

Drivers of electric cars will pay a road charge of 3p per mile, while plug-in hybrid drivers will pay 1.5p per mile from April 2028.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[rob666]

It hasn't spooked the market, so it can't be that bad.
And short of a tldr goosey, and what about soylent green?

And I hate to admit this one, but many years ago, I knew of a few "million pound a year" families, who bred out of spite "against the system".
Many of their innocent offspring ended up being looked after by the state at massive expense.
And every town has them.

Sadly, the underclass is still out there, costing the state an absolute fortune, and supported further by an expanding black economy.
But fewer trading standards/H&S/police enforcement due to previous cuts.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The tax on electric cars discussed in this budget and due to launch in 2028 is nothing to do with VED, it is a per mile charge intended to replace fuel duty for vehicles not currently paying fuel duty.

Electric vehicle owners to face pay-per-mile tax

Drivers of electric cars will pay a road charge of 3p per mile, while plug-in hybrid drivers will pay 1.5p per mile from April 2028.

www.bbc.co.uk

From the article you've posted:

Payment will be integrated into the existing Vehicle Excise Duty system that is administrated by DVLA.

 

[BarryZola]

Freezing tax thresholds is putting income tax up. It is known as fiscal drag. As wages rise with inflation, more of your money falls into tax bands, or moves into the higher rate. It generates billions for the Treasury without ever having to announce a rate rise. It is the oldest trick in the book.

As for the "ballooning welfare budget", I will repeat myself until I am blue in the beak... The State Pension is the single largest component of the welfare budget. It costs over £130 billion a year. You cannot complain about the welfare budget "ballooning" whilst simultaneously defending the triple lock, which is the mechanism causing the ballooning.

Didn't the tories start with freezing the tax thresholds though, and she's just extending it? So, she isn't even achieveing anything extra for the next couple of years? And that was good enough that we don't need to put up income tax (in its simple form) and all of our public services will become much better now and we'll start substantially paying down the national debt?

Also, on the second point, I don't think I did defend the triple-lock, unless I'm mistaken

 

[rob666]

The tories started by increasing the basic threshold a lot though...I was one to notice and benefit.
It made a big difference to me...increased my hourly rate, kept the same part time hours, increased pay...all tax free.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

No, I was suggesting that instead of having hundreds of thousands of economically inactive people living in tax-payer funded family homes and getting their whole lifestyles paid for through benefits, that they be housed in very large complexes out of town or wherever (like blocks of flats or whatever) where their housing, food, job training etc is supplied for free until such a time where they are capable of taking a job out in the world and are able to pay their own way like the average working family. There would be recreation facilities and land etc. This would save a lot of money for the treasury compared with paying every individual person individual benefits and having them taking up lots of housing in communities that would then become available to working people wanting to start families. Obviously there would be nuances to work out which I'm sure you will point out but nothing that could not be overcome. I know it sounds a bit dystopian but I think whether people like it or not it's eventually where we'll end up. These people would not be incarcerated, they'd be free to live with family or friends out in society if they're willing to house them. However, the other option wouldn't be to be given their own home and a monthly equivalent to a wage for contributing nothing, it would be to live in one of these out of town centres where they get a chance to train and gain skills to get a career whilst simultaneously being provided with food, shelter and recreation.

Congratulations, you have successfully reinvented the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 and the Victorian Workhouse system.

"Economically inactive" is a statistical term, not a synonym for lazy people living a life of luxury on the state. This group includes the long term sick and disabled, people who physically or mentally cannot work. It includes carers who look after elderly parents or disabled relatives, saving the NHS and social care system billions of pounds a year. It includes students investing in their future skills and early retirees. Your proposal ignores the fact that removing these people from their support networks makes it harder, not easier, for them to return to work.

What you are describing is state sanctioned internment. Forcing people to move to specific locations, against their will, purely based on their economic status would be a flagrant breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to respect for private and family life, and likely Article 5, the right to liberty.

When you round up a specific demographic of the population and house them in "large complexes" away from the general populace, against their will, you are creating concentration camps. That is the literal definition. We tried this during the Boer War and it is a stain on our history, not a blueprint for future economic policy.

Your assumption that this would save the Treasury money is economically illiterate. Institutionalising people is incredibly expensive. It costs the taxpayer approximately £51,724 per year to keep one person in prison. Even a lite version of this providing food, heating, security, maintenance, staff and training would dwarf the cost of current benefits payments.

We stopped doing this over a century ago not just because it was cruel and inhumane, but because it didn't work.

 

[Slugjc]

The budget seems to have annoyed those who have told us that austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss budget would be a good thing. Which can't be a bad thing

Also, it it some we started taxing electric cars.

 

[BarryZola]

Congratulations, you have successfully reinvented the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 and the Victorian Workhouse system.

"Economically inactive" is a statistical term, not a synonym for lazy people living a life of luxury on the state. This group includes the long term sick and disabled, people who physically or mentally cannot work. It includes carers who look after elderly parents or disabled relatives, saving the NHS and social care system billions of pounds a year. It includes students investing in their future skills and early retirees. Your proposal ignores the fact that removing these people from their support networks makes it harder, not easier, for them to return to work.

What you are describing is state sanctioned internment. Forcing people to move to specific locations, against their will, purely based on their economic status would be a flagrant breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to respect for private and family life, and likely Article 5, the right to liberty.

When you round up a specific demographic of the population and house them in "large complexes" away from the general populace, against their will, you are creating concentration camps. That is the literal definition. We tried this during the Boer War and it is a stain on our history, not a blueprint for future economic policy.

Your assumption that this would save the Treasury money is economically illiterate. Institutionalising people is incredibly expensive. It costs the taxpayer approximately £51,724 per year to keep one person in prison. Even a lite version of this providing food, heating, security, maintenance, staff and training would dwarf the cost of current benefits payments.

We stopped doing this over a century ago not just because it was cruel and inhumane, but because it didn't work.

I said that no-one would be forced to go anywhere. They are free to live with family or friends, pay for their own accommodation by working or if those options are not available then they would have these out of town centres available to them where every basic need would be met and they would also have access to free career training and leisure space. No-one is being forced anywhere.

As I also said, there would be nuances and as you've mentioned in certain cases more thinking and a slightly different approach would be needed when it comes to dealing with the needs of the disabled or carers and certain situations like that.

Finally, I totally disagree that it wouldn't be cost effective, I'm afraid. It could be made to be very cost effective. A lot of that £51,724 cost given for each prisoner that gets thrown around a lot probably includes a lot of waste or creative accounting. I'd love to see a factual breakdown of how it costs £51,724 to keep an individual person in prison for a year.

 

[rob666]

The accounts are all out there nowadays mate.
They used to do their best to bury them.

A grand a week, some much much more.

Used to be the same for a kid in care, but since the sector was privatised...
Well, you can guess.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I said that no-one would be forced to go anywhere. They are free to live with family or friends, pay for their own accommodation by working or if those options are not available then they would have these out of town centres available to them where every basic need would be met and they would also have access to free career training and leisure space. No-one is being forced anywhere.

As I also said, there would be nuances and as you've mentioned in certain cases more thinking and a slightly different approach would be needed when it comes to dealing with the needs of the disabled or carers and certain situations like that.

Finally, I totally disagree that it wouldn't be cost effective, I'm afraid. It could be made to be very cost effective. A lot of that £51,724 cost given for each prisoner that gets thrown around a lot probably includes a lot of waste or creative accounting. I'd love to see a factual breakdown of how it costs £51,724 to keep an individual person in prison for a year.

"Your money or your life" is also technically a choice, but I doubt you would consider a highwayman to be a champion of free will.

If you remove the financial support that allows a person to live independently (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit), and the only alternative offered by the state is a bed in a "large complex out of town", that is coercion. It is the removal of autonomy by economic force.

The £51,724 figure is not "creative accounting", it is the cost of running a 24 / 7 secure facility with human beings inside it. Admittedly this is for 2022 - 2023. Figures published earlier this year have seen this amount rise to £56,391, for 2023 - 2024.

The Ministry of Justice publishes these accounts annually. You can read the full breakdown for yourself here: https://assets.publishing.service.g...lace-costs-per-prisoner-2023-2024-summary.pdf

The vast majority of that cost is staffing. To run a facility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, requires a minimum of four shifts of staff. Even if you run your "warehouses" with lighter security than a prison, you still need:

• Security (to ensure the safety of residents and staff)
• Maintenance teams (things break)
• Cleaners (unless you are enforcing mandatory labour?)
• Catering staff (to feed thousands of people three times a day)
• Administrative staff
• Medical staff (people get sick)
• Trainers (for your proposed "free career training")

You are proposing that the government builds "very large complexes" of flats. Have you seen the cost of construction in the UK? The capital expenditure alone to build these new towns, because that is what they would need to be, would be astronomical. Billions upon billions of pounds. And for whom?

You say that there would be nuances for the disabled or carers. As I pointed out in my previous post, the disabled, the long term sick and carers make up the vast majority of the economically inactive working age population.

If you exempt the "nuances", you are left with the unemployed (those actively seeking work). The unemployment rate is currently around 4%. A significant portion of those are frictional / between jobs.

Employers are already notoriously risk averse. In our current system, listing a hostel or temporary accommodation as your address acts as a massive barrier to entry as it screams instability to a recruiter. If you force people to list one of your proposed warehouses as their residence, you are effectively branding them with a scarlet letter. You aren't helping them find work, you are institutionalising their unemployability and ensuring they remain trapped in the system forever.

Your plan involves spending billions of pounds building massive infrastructure projects and employing an army of staff to house a tiny statistical fraction of the population for a few months whilst they find a job. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. An incredibly expensive and morally bankrupt sledgehammer at that.

 

[shakey]

We cannot keep having more and more children . The planets population can't keep growing. And England is already the most densely populated country in Europe. So i maintain that encouraging people to have children is not a good long term solution. It just kicks the can down the road. And we certainly shouldn't be paying people to have 3 or more.

We are a country with a massive welfare bill which needs reducing, not increasing.

The triple pension lock needs to be scrapped.
Pensions should go up by inflation and no more.

So far I have not seen a single positive thing from this Labour government. And the way they are going they will not be in power again after this term, but unfortunately we could be out of the frying pan and into the fire if reform get in.

 

[BarryZola]

Edit - This was meant in reply to Goose's last post.

With respect, I can't see anywhere there with regards to prisons where it breaks down how much it costs for one prisoners food, how much to heat that prisoners share of all the cells, how much that person's share of being looked after by a member of prison staff costs, how much their share of an educator's time costs etc. They could just be pulling figures out of thin air without having a much more detailed breakdown.

OK, well if there aren't so many genuine scroungers who just don't want to work, then great, we'll need fewer of these large facilities. But I still believe there would be savings to be made there. Back to my earlier point though, most of the savings would come from those of pension age freeing up social housing for working age people and having all of their accommodation and other needs met centrally in larger out of town places.

 

[BarryZola]

We cannot keep having more and more children . The planets population can't keep growing. And England is already the most densely populated country in Europe. So i maintain that encouraging people to have children is not a good long term solution. It just kicks the can down the road. And we certainly shouldn't be paying people to have 3 or more.

We are a country with a massive welfare bill which needs reducing, not increasing.

The triple pension lock needs to be scrapped.
Pensions should go up by inflation and no more.

So far I have not seen a single positive thing from this Labour government. And the way they are going they will not be in power again after this term, but unfortunately we could be out of the frying pan and into the fire if reform get in.

Yes, and when we do end up with an awful Reform government which sinks the country much more quickly, it'll be the fault of Labour and the Conservatives for failing the people for so long and giving them no other good alternative. It'll just be Reform's turn as it was Labour's turn this time.

 

[shakey]

Yes, and when we do end up with an awful Reform government which sinks the country much more quickly, it'll be the fault of Labour and the Conservatives for failing the people for so long and giving them no other good alternative. It'll just be Reform's turn as it was Labour's turn this time.

Yep, good point.

I honestly think the Lib Dems should be given a crack at it , but I doubt they will ever have enough support to get the chance.

 

[rob666]

Yup, many haven't forgiven them for their last lovefest with the Tories.

I just can't see people being fooled by reform for long enough to get in at an election.
Grief about members and fallouts every week.