Page 15 | Is bankruptcy inevitable now for the UK

BringOnTheHandyMan · 2026-05-16T19:05:14+00:00

In the most layman of terms the UK is actually broke. Every month we cannot pay the interest on our outstanding debt and thus have to borrow more. (Note this is not repaying the capital, just the interest) The rate we pay to borrow used to be quite low and that is not the case anymore. The bond markets have lost faith in the UK and charge us a rate that reflects it. We have systems we can no longer afford (welfare, NHS etc) We have little to no growth We have inflation issues (so printing money is out) Raising or cutting interest rates is problematic due to having both growth and inflation issues together Our politicians are scrapping like rats in a barrel and even prior to that they seem incapable of making hard decisions or even facing up to the mess we are in. We do actually need a PM that stands up and says okay folks we are in deep shit. We are broke. Actually worse than that. In debt and unable to pay even the interest. So any borrowing we do must be for investing/growing the economy only. All spare money must be used for paying down debt or investing/growing the economy. That means for the foreseeable future all state funding is scrapped. We would enter a period of being very much a 'poor country' and acting like it. If we worked really hard we might be able to turn it around but it would take years, hard decisions and many, many sacrifices. Since I can't see any party being able to actually do that. Then I honestly don't see how we can go anywhere except an IMF bailout. Then they will play the tough guys and cut the lot anyway. I try to plan for my retirement but honestly it's sort of impossible. For those with public sector pensions I wouldn't be sure you will get it paid For those with private defined contribution pensions, the stock market is vastly overpriced just now and your pension is likely to fall once the AI bubble bursts. State pension - yip not convinced we'll be getting that Costs to be budgeted for - healthcare but how much? Downsize my house - perhaps but will house prices tumble making this impossible. Does anyone think that any government (regardless of party) can fix the country. If not what happens. The UK used to have no NHS or welfare so do we just go back to that. How long will it be until the wheels come off? Lots of threads about which benefits should be cut etc but nobody seems to be shouting that actually it ALL needs to be cut regardless of what hardship it causes.

MissConductUS · 24/05/2026 15:01

GasPanic · 24/05/2026 12:33

What this misses is that it is young people that are most likely to leave in search of new opportunities.

Older cohorts generally won't.

So generally if you are going to tax harder it is best to skew that towards older age groups if you are concerned about economic migration as a result of tax.

Tax is also best levied on things that are relatively difficult to move/are locked in.

It's hard to practice tax avoidance with land and pensions.

This also co-incidentally automatically pushes tax towards the most wealthy.

Show quote history

It did not miss that point.

The stereotypical British émigré used to be the retiree packing up for sunnier climes in Spain or France. These days it’s the younger worker who moves to Dubai for lower taxes and then delays returning to Britain. These are some of Britain’s most entrepreneurial people, and they’re spending their prime tax-paying years out of the country.

FernandoSor · 24/05/2026 15:23

Twinandatwoyearold · 23/05/2026 06:18

A suggestion I don’t remember seeing - charge 50% tax on any money being sent from the U.K. to a country where we give foreign aid (remittances). I’d do this immediately. Now the gov may choose to donate a percent of that money eventually but not now. If people are flying to their country of origin (on the 50% list) and are caught taking it out of the country in cash it’s 100% tax.

I would tax remittances at 100% if a country refuses to take back people we want to deport.

No benefits to anyone from abroad who has not paid into our system for 15 years. (Similar to how a state pension is accrued). We can’t afford such a luxury anymore. We are clearly too poor. That includes no council houses, no benefits, no pensions, no universal credit, child benefit, DLA, no housing benefit, pip or pension credit etc.

I would not dream of moving abroad unless I could support myself and if I lost my job I’d return to the U.K.

Deport all foreign criminals to free up prison space and reduce crime in the community. Deport all foreign tax evaders/money launders/those working in the hidden economy. (I’d deport criminal citizens too but we don’t have that luxury). Long sentences for violent offenders as there will be more prison space. This makes the law abiding women and girls and boys and men safer. If that makes me a meany and takes away my ‘progressive’ badge then who cares!

An honest conversation with the public. Cut the size of the state. The aim being to increase trust and participation and safety.

If they deported foreign criminals and made the streets safer. Stopped benefits for foreign arrivals. Locked up rapists and violent thugs.
If I trusted they were genuinely acting in the interest of the public and I felt safe I would happily donate 4 hours of time a week to improving our country. Litter picking. Painting fences. Cleaning signs. Clearing a canal. Or using professional skills if that is preferable. Whatever they need. I would happily volunteer to improve the country. I doubt I am the only one. The benefit to me is a nicer community, Good for mental health, get to know likeminded people.

I won’t be doing it for this wasteful government - they are clearly set to ruin small businesses (for their corporate friends?), bankrupt farmers (our food security is vital), and bankrupt the nation. Let off criminals. All while tax evading and getting convicted of crimes abroad and every other bloody scandal.

I want an honest government that reduces their costs quickly and makes us safer. Someone above said High Trust, High Participation. Great slogan!

I’m a floating voter and being tough on crime is my main issue and reducing gov spending is number 2.

Edited

Meanwhile the likes of Amazon UK and Google UK remit billions per year to the US and pay virtually no taxes. But yeah, it’s Amrita sending fifty quid a month back to her parents in Delhi that’s the real problem.

anyolddinosaur · 29/05/2026 07:56

We have one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/ That should be addressed and that means some form of wealth tax and/ or increasing tax on capital gains.

We also have a large number of people not in employment, including more young people than most developed countries. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/young-people-and-work-interim-report/young-people-and-work-interim-report

There are a variety of reasons for that but work needs to pay and there needs to be an expectation that people will work. The underfunding of the NHS has left people out of work who could be working if their health problems had been dealt with.

Older cohorts may leave in greater numbers in future - if I was single I might be leaving. Pensioners are now paying considerably more tax than they used to and the NHS is not what is was, the incentives to leave are increasing. https://ifs.org.uk/data-items/share-adult-population-paying-income-tax-age-bracket

The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK - Equality Trust

The UK has very high inequality of income compared to other developed countries. The UK's wealth inequality is much more severe than income inequality.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:32

Alexandra2001 · 19/05/2026 07:50

Your OP was almost gleeful at the prospect of an IMF bailout, in subsequent posts you said you wished the IMF would step in.....

We have growth, do you and others welcome this? not a chance, just more negativity, UK has grown more in the last 22months than it did in the 22months prior to the July GE.

Tories had the chance over 14years to show us what the 'right can do and made a complete pigs ear of it, even slashed Defence spend, despite Crimea and Ukraine.

Everyone knows that Welfare needs to be reduced and some ways to do that is through increased help for people with MH issues, addressing NHS waiting lists, building more social housing so less people being subsidised to live in private housing.

But the above takes money and investment.

Some of the biggest Welfare spends are on Childcare, SEND and Pensions.... how would you cut these & still get elected? or is it more a case of "Get Lab to do this instead of the Tories/Reform in 2029" We can blame them, whilst not reversing any of it.

As to the NHS working well in 80s and 90s? you re joking? it was an utter mess, my mum was working in it, fragmented, under funded and a Govt that drew up plans to privatise and sell it off.

Show quote history

I don't think anyone could be gleeful at the thought of an IMF bailout. I mean it's embarrassing how far the UK has fallen.

I just don't see any government being prepared to be the bad guy. So if none of them can do it then yes I wish the IMF would be the 'bad guy' and then the govt can hide behind the IMF. Rip the plaster off so to speak.

The longer we let this go on the worse it is going to be.

I don't know what was happening behind the scenes in the NHS in the eighties and nineties but I know I had an NHS dentist no problem and I could phone and get a doctors appointment with no trouble. Neither of those things happen now.

Yes you are correct we could maybe fix some welfare by improving the NHS mental health dept and getting some people back to work. However as you correctly pointed out we are broke so I don't think that is going to happen. The IMF already said recently the UK must cut their spending not increase it.

OP posts:

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:37

ByGraptharsHammer · 18/05/2026 18:14

I don’t think anyone imagines that there would be no consequences. But this thread is partly about the IMF being called in. If they were, they would cut or implement some of the above. The social costs would be accepted. Does this mean no one suffers? No. People would suffer.

Edited

I can't quite get my head around those people who keep saying they can't do that (cut things). Of course they can.

Imagine if you said to most people 20-30 years ago we would all have to pay for private dental care or go without. I'm guessing people would have been outraged. It has happened though and we have just had to get on with it. And yes some people don't go to the dentist anymore cos they can't afford it.

OP posts:

Badbadbunny · 31/05/2026 19:38

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:32

I don't think anyone could be gleeful at the thought of an IMF bailout. I mean it's embarrassing how far the UK has fallen.

I just don't see any government being prepared to be the bad guy. So if none of them can do it then yes I wish the IMF would be the 'bad guy' and then the govt can hide behind the IMF. Rip the plaster off so to speak.

The longer we let this go on the worse it is going to be.

I don't know what was happening behind the scenes in the NHS in the eighties and nineties but I know I had an NHS dentist no problem and I could phone and get a doctors appointment with no trouble. Neither of those things happen now.

Yes you are correct we could maybe fix some welfare by improving the NHS mental health dept and getting some people back to work. However as you correctly pointed out we are broke so I don't think that is going to happen. The IMF already said recently the UK must cut their spending not increase it.

Show quote history

I agree, the sooner the IMF impose spending cuts, the better, because quite frankly it's inevitable and the longer we delay, the worse things will be because the national debt just gets bigger, as does the interest we're having to pay.

No government is willing to alienate huge groups of people, i.e. OAPs re the triple lock, so we do need an outsider to tell Government to cut costs and then when the triple lock is scrapped, the presiding government can blame the IMF. Likewise with other benefits, public sector spending, etc.

We really should have had some austerity 15 years ago after the GFC, but we had "austerity lite" where the governments claimed they were imposing austerity but government spending continued to rise, so it wasn't austerity at all!

When you're in a hole, stop digging!

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:41

ByGraptharsHammer · 18/05/2026 19:28

Yes but unfortunately, you cannot have a sustainable tax system looking at middle income earners to fill this gap.

The IMF don’t point out what the consequences would be. But they would be severe for those on low incomes because housing is so expensive, and you would have families not in flats or houses but rooms and HMOs. Housing will not get magically cheap under these cuts.

Show quote history

Yes people often point out that we need more social housing. However is social housing not subsidised by the taxpayer? In which case the govt can't afford to provide it (or pay people's private rent either).

The answer is pay for your own house or private rental and if you can't afford that then we need to go back to generations of families living together taking care of each other. In other words you live in whatever you can afford to pay yourself.

OP posts:

binliner · 31/05/2026 19:43

That’s not a realistic solution as the housing market is so distorted and wages have stagnated.

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:44

hagchic · 19/05/2026 09:46

@PistachioTiramisu It's not dislike or hate. It's an understanding that current and previous pensioners have had a very generous deal and have been protected from economics shocks.

Triple lock was meant to be temporary, Winter fuel payment was meant to be temporary.

I can see no reason why pensioners get free prescriptions, free bus travel and all the other discounts.

As a group, they are less likely than other age groups to be in poverty.

It is imperative that we create generational fairness and that means pensioners have to contribute more and take out less.

I understand many are cash poor but asset (housing) rich - but they need to be pushed to downsize (and I would use an annual property tax) so that this housing is available to those who need it more than they do.

Pensioners living in large houses that they cannot afford, cannot maintain and often isolates them are often doing so to retain asset wealth to pass on to their families and also to try and avoid paying for the social care that they need (that they would need less of if they lived in a flat or supported living).

If you think pensioners are under attack now, I think you should look at history and what happens when young people get really angry at their situation, like in the cultural revolution.

I think realistically the cuts are going to have to effect everyone and everything. So welfare, NHS, WFA and triple lock.

The older generation were lucky. Just pure timing of when they were born. They didn't cause it but they did get an advantage. I don't see any point in blaming them for things outwith their control but yes they will need to be included in the cuts.

OP posts:

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:47

Badbadbunny · 31/05/2026 19:38

I agree, the sooner the IMF impose spending cuts, the better, because quite frankly it's inevitable and the longer we delay, the worse things will be because the national debt just gets bigger, as does the interest we're having to pay.

No government is willing to alienate huge groups of people, i.e. OAPs re the triple lock, so we do need an outsider to tell Government to cut costs and then when the triple lock is scrapped, the presiding government can blame the IMF. Likewise with other benefits, public sector spending, etc.

We really should have had some austerity 15 years ago after the GFC, but we had "austerity lite" where the governments claimed they were imposing austerity but government spending continued to rise, so it wasn't austerity at all!

When you're in a hole, stop digging!

Show quote history

Exactly right. Nobody wants to go through it but the longer it goes on the worse it gets. So yes I wish the IMF would just get on with it.

OP posts:

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:53

binliner · 31/05/2026 19:43

That’s not a realistic solution as the housing market is so distorted and wages have stagnated.

I know what you are trying to say. You are trying to say people can't afford housing because wages are low compared to house prices. You are correct about that.

However it is realistic to say people will have to live where they can afford. It's just not a pleasant thought. I keep harking back but in the UK it used to be quite normal for generations to live together, to only get a doctor is you could afford it and there to be no welfare state. The UK used to be wealthy, now we are not. We need to accept that. Saying it's not fair just isn't going to cut it.

OP posts:

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:57

FasterMichelin · 20/05/2026 18:14

WTF. I can’t believe you’re suggesting the government should throw the most vulnerable under the bus. Anyone with those views should be ashamed of themselves.

“only by the grace of god” - being a care leaver/ disabled/ cognitively impaired/ down and out - all things that could have happened to any of us. We win the lottery by being raised with loving parents in a stable environment and go on to live productive lives, be grateful you haven’t had to have any of the above and rely on public funds to live life.

Show quote history

They aren't throwing people under the bus as you put it for fun. They are cutting spending because the UK is broke. Little Johnny might be disabled but the UK is still broke. By all means feel sorry for little Johnny and try to suggest ways his family could cope but the UK will still be broke. There's nothing fun about it

OP posts:

Badbadbunny · 31/05/2026 19:58

binliner · 31/05/2026 19:43

That’s not a realistic solution as the housing market is so distorted and wages have stagnated.

Housing costs would never have gone up so much had the government/taxpayer not been subsidising it via benefits etc.

In the long run it's costing the taxpayer more because we're paying for the profits of private landlords whereas had we built more council houses, and been more restrictive about eligibility, i.e. a five yearly review, the taxpayer wouldn't be paying those profits.

Likewise with PFI, new trains etc., it was false economy to be forced to use private money because the taxpayer's ended up paying more in the long run, just to try to keep the costs "off balance sheet".

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 19:58

hagchic · 20/05/2026 19:19

@FasterMichelin Problem is the 'most vulnerable' is a rapidly growing group.

So whilst it might be possible to help the 'most, most vulnerable' - the lower level 'vulnerable', who have similar issues to many other people who are working either part or full time, will have to make do with less.

Yes it's like nobody can believe or understand the answer is 'well you will just have to manage on less'. It's completely unacceptable to these posters no matter how empty the UK coffers are.

OP posts:

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 20:01

1dayatatime · 20/05/2026 19:36

I think this post illustrates the problem we face.

Absolutely it would be kinder to provide for vulnerable in society, absolutely it would be fairer to share out income from the rich to the poor.

The problem with this approach however is reality - where is the money going to come from? Of course the stock answer is always "tax the rich" which basically means tax people with more money than me but definitely not me.

Then there is the problem that taxation discourages behaviour whether it's tobacco tax, alcohol tax or even speeding fines are a form of discouraging taxation. Meanwhile subsidies and benefits encourage behaviour for example solar panels or EV cars.

So when you increase taxation on working people you discourage going to work and when you increase benefits to non working people you encourage not working.

It's very simple although harsh to many.

Show quote history

Yes. I agree. The answers are pretty straightforward aren't they.
Some people just don't want to hear it.

OP posts:

Badbadbunny · 31/05/2026 20:08

The country is paying over £100 BILLION per year in interest on its' debt - that's more than we spend on education. It's insane. We're borrowing just to pay the interest on debt run up in previous years. We've only paid down debt in 2 or 3 years over the past 40 years. It's just not sustainable. Something has to give. We're living beyond our means and either have to massively increase the economy by getting people working, making stuff, etc, or we have to cut costs, or preferably both. It simply can't carry on.

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 20:13

lemonmeringuefry · 20/05/2026 22:24

https://www.abta.com/news/number-holidays-taken-person-reaches-new-high-people-seek-getaway-get-together

ABTA is a trade association for travel agents, tour operators and the travel industry more generally. The figures are very much real life modern day Britain rather than coming from any fictional utopia. I see this level of holidaying all around me in my fairly middle class town.

Here's the text from the link -

People took an average of 3.94 holidays, up from 3.42 the previous year, and overtaking the previous peak of 3.91 in 2019. Travellers also took more trips abroad, with an average of 1.7 trips per person up from 1.45 last year.
This suggests a trend of ‘Habitual Holidaymakers’, with people viewing holidays as important and having a firm commitment to travel, despite a prolonged period of higher living costs.

The most prolific travellers were families and those under the age of 35, with 18-24 year olds taking an average of 5.33 trips, 25-34 year olds going on 6.43 breaks and families with children over the age of five going on holiday 5.32 times during this period.

However, it’s families with young children (aged under five) who took the most holidays, at an average of 6.49, up from 5.27 last year and much more than five years ago (3.89 in 2019)...

The full Holiday Habits 2024-25 report can be found at www.abta.com/holidayhabits2024-25.

The idea that we need to starve the poor so the average person can keep affording their 4 holidays a year, and the wealthy can take their 6 to 8 is deeply wrong. We are not a poor country and the average person is not struggling financially to the extent that some people make out. It's the 20% at the bottom who include low earners and people on benefits who are struggling and it's not them that we should be targeting for savings. We could easily raise taxes without affecting most in the country beyond having to cut down on their holidaying a little.

Show quote history

We cut all the benefits. Then those who have their own money (ie wages or savings or inheritance) will presumably continue to have their x number of holidays by paying for it themselves. The rest of us will not have holidays. Holidays are a luxury. Nobody should be going on holiday paid for by the taxpayer.

OP posts:

Original poster

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 20:29

Badbadbunny · 31/05/2026 20:08

The country is paying over £100 BILLION per year in interest on its' debt - that's more than we spend on education. It's insane. We're borrowing just to pay the interest on debt run up in previous years. We've only paid down debt in 2 or 3 years over the past 40 years. It's just not sustainable. Something has to give. We're living beyond our means and either have to massively increase the economy by getting people working, making stuff, etc, or we have to cut costs, or preferably both. It simply can't carry on.

Yes and as these bonds fall due for repayment I presume we have to refinance them at higher rates (at what we pay currently). So even if our debt does not go up the interest payments probably will. We need to start paying the debt down. It's the only way out of the vicious circle, then that huge interest bill can be spent building the country back up.

OP posts:

binliner · 31/05/2026 20:42

@BringOnTheHandyMan my point is there is huge inequality in housing particularly generationally.

However it is realistic to say people will have to live where they can afford. It's just not a pleasant thought

But that’s the problem, we have too much concentration in London & SE so there isn’t the spread of jobs in areas that are affordable & we need the retail workers etc in London.

The answer is pay for your own house or private rental and if you can't afford that then we need to go back to generations of families living together taking care of each other.

And how does that work if people don’t have space for family within their homes?

the80sweregreat · 31/05/2026 20:43

The UK feels in decline. That’s how I feel and it’s sad.

binliner · 31/05/2026 20:45

Housing costs would never have gone up so much had the government/taxpayer not been subsidising it via benefits etc.

Selling off council houses was a big mistake and paying tax to landlords in the form of housing benefit is a waste of money

It’s not just the above though, QE inflated assets and lending criteria was different pre crash.

binliner · 31/05/2026 20:55

I absolutely agree that something needs to be done because it’s a shitshow.

We desperately need growth but making people even more for housing or move to cheaper areas won’t encourage growth.

elperosimpatico · 31/05/2026 22:51

Can the planet take much more growth? Can we have growth indefinitely even if we can handle a little more? Greta Thunberg would probably tell us we can't take any more at all.

elperosimpatico · 31/05/2026 23:15

BringOnTheHandyMan · 31/05/2026 20:13

We cut all the benefits. Then those who have their own money (ie wages or savings or inheritance) will presumably continue to have their x number of holidays by paying for it themselves. The rest of us will not have holidays. Holidays are a luxury. Nobody should be going on holiday paid for by the taxpayer.

Show quote history

I doubt there are many people on benefits going on many holidays. I only know a few people on benefits and they go on few or no holidays already. But the average person is not remotely poor - most people in the UK are still relatively well off. Taxes could still go up to improve public services. A one off tax for the super wealthy to pay off the public debt would surely make a massive difference too and free up more funds for the here and now. We'd have to be careful not to get into so much debt again.

1dayatatime · 01/06/2026 09:19

elperosimpatico · 31/05/2026 22:51

Can the planet take much more growth? Can we have growth indefinitely even if we can handle a little more? Greta Thunberg would probably tell us we can't take any more at all.

Growth in what - population or economic?

if say the word population doubled then regardless of whether economically there was growth or not then environmentally the world would be seriously damaged.

Conversely if the global population halved but with economic growth then environmentally the world would benefit.

It's less about economic growth and more about the global population.