To think we need to prioritise defence/Ukraine spending?

[Wildflowers99]

I’ll admit I had no idea how depleted our military has become until a few weeks ago. I was absolutely staggered to read we now spend more on PIP and DLA than our entire military.

I feel like slowly all of our public spending has been funnelled into health, benefits and social care, leaving everything else in a very poor state. Any time anyone has suggested spending money on anything apart from ‘freezing pensioners, the homeless or disabled’ they get shouted down (I am disabled btw, so I do understand the need).

AIBU to think we need to urgently address our spending priorities and as a nation wake up to the fact we’ve been overspending on the above for too long?

I was still making them 20 years ago. And paying 40% tax. 😂

Once again, if pensions weren’t intended for lifelong support, what were they intended for?

Yes housing costs is a reflection on the lack of quality social housing available.
Prior to housing being sold off, social housing was a viable alternative to buying or getting into private rents.

I get why it seemed a good idea at the time. Someone pointed out the reason council house sales happened was to break the power of the trade unions, ie you can't just down tools and go on strike when you have a mortgage to pay, where skipping a weeks rent the councils couldn't throw you out. A mortgage lender doesn't have the same moral commitment to keep people housed.

Selling the housing stock off at a low Loan to Value rates also meant there was little risk to the Mortgage Lenders. So they were lending to hourly paid people (tradesmen) who they'd previously turned away for mortgages.

If your trying to say the retirement age should rise 1 in 3 people end up on sickness benefits prior to retirement. And there's probably a 3rd who keep going to that end goal of retirement when really they aren't that fit.

Yes we all hear about the really fit 90 year olds still doing marathons. But really they aren't the norm.
I have seen a ridiculous number of people who have died either very soon after retirement or while still of working age.

I think rather than putting retirement up we should be looking at getting young people into jobs sooner.
Less people going to Uni more people going into work.
And make sure Uni courses are producing the graduates the country needs. I know young people with degrees and no jobs.

I'll add to that when I say no job, what i mean is no proper graduate type job, they all seem to be doing pub work.

Are people a bit like pens in your opinion OP? If they don't work, you shake them- if they still don't work you throw them away?

I can see a promising future for you as a work coach, I really can.

I'm worried that a peace settlement will involve underfunded British troops, with inadequate kit and no American back up. I can only imagine that funding has deteriorated since the Iraq war, and that most available supplies have been sent to Ukraine already.

This X post is from a soldier who fought in Iraq:

JAmais Vu
As an ex Serviceman that served over 30+ years - 15 of those years overseas + numerous Operational Tours. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank America for ensuring my safety when on operational duty. Labour sent us to Iraq with no body armour & open top land rovers.

British soldiers were supplementing their own kit out of their salary. Plus, Americans in theatre were giving British soldiers any spare kit to beg could. The way MPs treat our Armed Forces is grotesque. I’m sick of MPs using our Armed Forces as a grip & grin opportunity.

Scaus
I have family who served they have told of the horrors of begging and borrowing ammo and praying the Americans answer the comms they will actually come and get you.

Tony Brown
When I hear talk of the Government potentially putting the British Army once again into harms way, I will always remember them sending troops to fight wars in inadequate Snatch Landrovers. Because they were cheap and available Sadly Costing many lives.

Zombie69
I remember squadies buying their own kit and sharing it in Iraq . They called us the Borrowers

https://x.com/boot15_vu/status/1896975754757550540

The only reason we were in Iraq at all was to support the US.

The problem is, you can prioritise spending on the military - at the expense of benefits, the NHS, services for children. And life gets more miserable for people at the bottom of the pile, and more miserable in the squeezed middle. And then a populist (Farage or similar) gets elected as a result and immediately strips the NHS/public services down to their parts and sells the lot to US companies. And sells out foreign policy to Russia. So what is the point of all that defense spending then? We could save time and just send it to Russia now.

America have the most powerful military in the world. But Putin managed to do to the US in 3 months what he completely failed to do to Ukraine in 3 years. Not a shot fired. I don't think copying the US Democratic party is a good move. We do need increased military spending. Cutting benefits down to the bone to fund isn't the way. There are other ways - either increase capital gains tax (that only the richest pay anyway) or borrow more (not ideal but if the borrowed money is spent within the UK to grow the UK economy which can be done with defense spending its not the worst thing.)

There is a lot of cross party agreement, and a lot of consensus within the UK currently over sympathy for Ukraine and annoyance at Vance. That won't last very long if people find their quality of life further reduced while the media talk about "waste" in the MOD (there is always waste in military spending you can reduce it but you can't remove it) and online agitators stir the pot. The narrative of "we have had it easy for too long" is maybe true if you mean we have avoided conversations about defense. It isn't true for individuals though - lots of people have suffered through austerity, Covid disruption etc. Any politician pushing that narrative is going to wind up looking out of touch, even if right now people agree.

In times of urgency or national security you have to have a consensus that everyone will do their bit. And that those with the broadest shoulders bear the burden. Its not about "punishing the rich". But high earners can afford to take on more of the burden than those at the bottom of the pile currently. Otherwise, people will see public spending cut to fund defence. And see some people getting richer as a result and the gap between rich and poor widening further. And that won't hold longterm. Plus, reducing the spending power of the working and lower middle class will hurt the economy.

IF its not a matter of urgent national security then why are we worried? If it is, those with the resources to contribute should understand.

So, you are demanding a consensus that the wealthy should pay more than everybody else - and then hope that the most mobile sector of the population won't leave?

And what bit do you imagine yourself doing?

No. I am saying it can't only come out of social care/income tax etc. Anyone with investments in the defence industry (a lot of people with money invested will) will already have had a really good week. Further boosting to the economy will boost them too. Thats not a bad thing. It doesn't make them evil, The economy growing is very good - and benefits lots of people but especially those with investments aka the rich. You can tax income - but that is a tax on hard work and would squeeze the "hardworking middle" more. Capital gains tax is a tax on passive income and it is currently a lot lower than income tax - you pay much less tax currently on the money your money makes than on the money you earn by working. We need people to work. We need people to feel invested enough in the state to want to defend it too.

People are mobile. Assets etc aren't. Thats why taxing the appreciation in value of those assets is actually achievable and less damaging potentially than taxing income tax which may indeed drive more people to Dubai etc (I agree thats a rick). I am not saying "remove all property and redistribute it". I am not even saying "don't let the wealthy profit from their wealth". I am saying let's not allow the poorest to pay for this and the richest to grow richer of their backs to the extent that the wealth gap grows even more. Because that will lead to resentment. (look up Russia in WW1 and how that ended).

I'm sick of the argument that the rich can't be asked to pay more, or they might leave. Fuck em then, if they're that selfish, and taking advantage of the higher percentage that the poorer and 'cost of living challenged' have to pay out.

I am hardly rich but am well paid
I agree I should be taxed more, and expected to be for covid, COL, public services . I expected to be

But I would also say there is a limit, very high tax rates do make people leave and has wider consequences.

Personally I would say the current highest tax rate should be 50%, with adding a further rate of say 55%/60% over £300k

Lets turn that argument on its head and say that, actually, we believe the rich have been unfairly vilified and that they aren't all evil/selfish/psychopaths. Just as lots of young people join the army when their country is threatened - showing a willingness to, if necessary, make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, surely someone earning 100,000 on their savings alone (not that their savings are 100,000 but the money their savings make is that much) will understand paying 7,000 extra tax. Their quality of life will still be great.

Income tax is not the same as capital gains tax. I agree that well paid people can also be taxed more. But it is weird that you have to pay more for the money you earn working, than if you were rich enough to not work at all but your savings generated the same amount as your wages.

I don't honestly see how a rent cap would work.
We are in a capitalist society, supply and demand.
Prices will only come down when supply meets demand which it never will with more people literally floating into the country daily. Coupled with trying to get rid of the poor quality cheap damp houses of the 60s.

Why would anyone allow their pay to go to the tax man like that?

People will either reduce hours (really helpful when you have a shortage or doctors and dentists), they'll move and take their skills with them, or put more into pensions out the way.

What's the point in taking the next promotion, more responsibility, more stress while the tax man runs away with half.

Those with there own businesses have other ways of managing tax.

Whipping higher earner just isn't the answer

I think a rent cap could work, but it requires the development of a rental market which can be regulated whilst also still making money for those who invest in it.

I'm not sure the UK rental market is in that space at the moment.

Why would anyone allow their pay to go to the tax man like that?

Because some people take social responsibility seriously and recognise that it takes money to deliver decent public services. They’re also sufficiently numerate to understand that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Where are those people going to move to? There’s a flood of people leaving the US now, Canada is out of the question, taxes are higher in most of Europe, that leaves Australia and N Zealand. How many people are prepared to move literally to the other side of the world to save 3% of taxation?

Which is why you tax capital gains. Or at least make sure that it is taxed at the same rate as income. Capital gains tax is currently lower than income tax and that ISN'T a tax on money you earn by working longer hours, working harder, taking promotions etc. Its a tax on money you earn by having money to invest in assets and those assets increasing in value so much that when you sell them you make an absolute killing. And good for you if you are one of those people. But they can pay tax on it. Currently the ceiling for when capital gains tax kicks in is fairly high and you only pay tax over that ceiling. So keeping the ceiling the same but chrging the same tax as income tax would only hit those who would afford it - at the lower levels it would mean not being able to buy a new Rolex. But great sacrifices must sometimes be made.

You could also say "what's the point in signing up to the army to possibly die in war when my country doesn't give a shit about me". But when they talk about "increasing srmy size" there is an assumption people will.

Why wouldn’t they? They’re still getting more cash in their account every month. There is no other way to increase income apart from earning more, and we have a progressive tax system so you always take home more the more you earn.

why work less to earn less? Maybe people want more money to buy things, borrow multiples or a higher salary for their mortgage etc.

Which is why you tax capital gains.
According to HMRC, if you pay higher rate income tax, you pay 24% on your capital gains from the off.
You only benefit from an extra tax allowance if you're a basic rate taxpayer. And they've already put the rates up there.

What people object to with taxing capital gains is that the money that has been invested has already been taxed. But I can see your argument, @biscuitandcake and the ££ has got to come from somewhere.

I'd start with the likes of Amazon, myself: if you site yourself in a low-tax regime, but want to trade with the UK, every transaction is charged a % based on some tax:turnover ratio developed from the financials of a number of UK-based omcpanies. So if, say, Random Company plc, Invented Company plc and others pay an average of 4% of their turnover as tax, every Amazon transaction attracts a 4% charge. 4% of £27 billion (Amazon's current UK turnover, per AI) would be quite useful.

Are you not aware that the NHS already has an issue with Doctors cutting down to a 4-day week because working that 5th day puts them up a tax band and just isn't worth it?

You'll also have people who will say you know what I'm fairly comfortable with current income why bother with that promotion and losts more stress?

Income Tax has similar effects as people on top up benefits, it can be a disincentive to take more responsibility and more hours.

Are you not aware that the NHS already has an issue with Doctors cutting down to a 4-day week because working that 5th day puts them up a tax band and just isn't worth it?

The higher tax band - a whole 5p in the £ - only applies to a proportion of the additional money. I doubt that’s the reason people drop a day. There are now more women than men in clinical professions so it’s far more likely to be because of childcare issues.

My sister is a GP and this is very true.

Her decision to work part time is 100% to do with childcare and 0 to do with tax implications.