Yes. Sustainable solutions are possible, although I’m sure as has been stated already by many posters they won’t even bother to read my post because it is long. I’m afraid solutions aren’t three word soundbites/ slogans per Johnson, Farage, etc. They are quite happy to disagree with me, it seems, but without actually reading what I have written. Not sure how that works but such is the level of “debate”.
Quite a lot needs to change for our economy to be made sustainable and productivity to increase, which is the only way to raise living standards sustainably rather than it just be a case of dividing up the remaining crumbs between warring factions. Fundamentally, it requires a huge improvement in the efficiency of spending, a coherent industrial and trade policy, investment in infrastructure and education and a very large redirecting of public spending from the old to the young. Over 65s are 15% of the population yet consume over 50% of total public spending including their share per head of the general costs like infrastructure, defence etc. This is the main reason why taxes are going through the roof and at the same time there has been chronic underinvestment in the parts of our economy that will actually generate improved productivity, rising living standards and growth and some hope for the future. The longer measures to address this are not taken the worse the effect will be and the less likely that the UK can recover from its steep economic decline which is far outpacing those of what were previously our comparator countries and face the same external geopolitical issues (Ukraine, Middle East, Covid etc) as well as ageing demographics, yet have managed their economies and tax systems better to avoid the huge amount of imported inflation, our level of reduced productivity and investment, our much higher rises in interest rates and falling salaries on a PPP basis and therefore UK living standards reducing comparatively year on year.
-
means test the state pension with a gradual taper rate like in Australia, so that it reaches zero when the PLSA income level for a moderate retirement for an individual/ couple is met (or assets sufficient to generate this income). This would create absolutely zero poverty because it is set at a level which allows for foreign holidays, running a car, eating out regularly, etc: the only impact would be that those pensioners who don’t need the state pension and are currently spending it on extra luxuries no longer receive it/ all of it. This would save £80-90bn per year - these completely unnecessary welfare payments to wealthy pensioners are by far the most wasteful part of public spending and it needs to stop. The quid pro quo can be no further raises in state retirement age. There is no rational argument for the status quo. The current generation of retirees are - on average - extracting £200k per person more in welfare and state services than they paid in tax over their lifetimes, in real terms. This is not sustainable and cannot continue. They didn’t pay sufficient tax to fund their demands on the current working aged population and neither did they provide anything like what they are demanding for their own parents and grandparents. It’s crippling our economy. Ceasing these payments to people who do not need them at all would create no poverty whatsoever, just upset a lot of pensioners who continue to claim that they have “paid for their pension” and that it “isn’t welfare” when all they have done is pay the tax required so that they aren’t breaking the law and go to prison and it’s been clear ever since the National Insurance Act 1948 that this is a welfare payments and - just like all welfare payments - the eligibility criteria and amount is subject to change (the PLSA levels are uprated with inflation every year and currently £31,700 for an individual or £43,900 for a couple after tax and housing costs - so far exceed the income of the vast majority of working-aged people who are paying NI, housing costs, childcare and have nowhere near this amount left as disposable income, so no pensioner would be left in poverty by removing their state pension at this level. When you consider that the recently-proposed cuts to disability benefit aimed to save £5bn per year and this measure would save £80-90bn per year, you can understand the scale of the problem and that it is pension welfare that is one of the reasons why the UK’s infrastructure and education system and all productive investment is falling apart. This ponzi scheme cannot continue and simply won’t, because it can’t, but the longer it goes on the more damage it will do and the harder it will be for the UK to recover, all so that working-aged people can fund luxuries and extra holidays for wealthy pensioners who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves, because politicians are scared to upset them. They need to get over this and do it - it should have been done decades ago). These pensioners funded nothing like this for their own parents or grandparents, and as a cohort paid nowhere near enough to fund it for themselves. They had decades where the collapse of this ponzi scheme was foreseen as an inevitability yet continued to vote for politicians who did nothing about it and demanded no change, and now state that it would be “unfair” to change it for those already retired. Ridiculous. It has to be changed and somebody needs to get a grip and tell them it is being changed, with immediate effect.
-
The above measure would enable significant investment in productive parts of the economy that have been starved of cash in which investment is essential to generate growth: education and infrastructure in particular. We need a lower proportion of people going to university and far more technical colleges with apprenticeships set up in conjunction with businesses leading to respected and useful vocational qualifications that lead directly into employment with the training employer, more similar to the German model. We also need to increase funding for schools by 50% to ensure smaller class sizes and a wider range of schools to suit different needs - some more academic in focus like the old grammar schools and some more focused on arts or sports or practical and technical skills. Trying to pretend all children are identical is ridiculous and we need to abandon the failed model of forcing almost all children into one-size-fits-all mainstream education which serves nobody well. Fund SEND education properly and put a proper regulator in place for education which will impose fines and sanctions and strip qualifications from people or even impose prison sentences when the law is broken, as is the case in every other sector (law, medicine, finance) rather than individual parents being expected to enforce the law. In the long run, the failure of education and enabling every child to reach their potential is going to cost us orders of magnitude more in terms of welfare, lower growth, higher justice and healthcare costs, etc, so underfunding education is economic insanity.
-
All responsibility for the provision of education and social care should also be taken back within the remit of the relevant central Government departments so that there is accountability, even if they delegate implementation tasks to Local Authorities. The recently mooted plans to redistribute Council tax across the country just add another layer of bureaucracy to achieve the same effective central funding outcome but with no accountability allowing central Government to blame Councils for the failures when they are underfunded and not capable anyway of administering these systems competently and this has led to a huge squandering of resources on ineffective systems designed more to try to circumvent their statutory responsibilities than actually implement the required services. Social care whether in the home or out of the home should be treated equally in terms of funding. General taxation can rise slightly to fund this and Council tax be significantly lowered with Local Authorities responsible only for local services such as waste collection, leisure centres, road maintenance, libraries etc.
-
The savings from point 1) also would enable us to remove the op-out for auto-enrolment and significantly increase the level of mandatory contributions for both employees and employers whilst making tax cuts to make this fiscally neutral and ensure that there is a stable pensions system in place for the future. A similar mandatory scheme should be introduced for the self-employed unless they can demonstrate sufficient levels of independent assets to fund their own retirement entirely independently. Meanwhile the Government should commit - as independent report after independent report into the pensions industry in the UK has advised them for years now - NOT to make any further changes to the rules around withdrawals, tax relief, etc because this is undermining any faith in people trusting the system sufficiently to invest their money into it, knowing rules might be changed in the future.
-
Abandon the failed NHS model and emulate on of the far superior European models like those in France or Germany which have been shown to deliver far better patient outcomes and value for money. People would get treated in a timely manner, healthcare would vastly improve. There should be far more preventative healthcare and screening because this saves billions of pounds in extra healthcare costs to treat conditions only once they have become worse and in lost tax revenue and productivity with people unnecessarily out of work. There is a reason why no other country in the world has emulated the NHS system and all of the countries that have better health outcomes do not use a system like ours. Every time this is proposed ridiculous people try to pretend that changing it would mean we were moving to a US model which - again - nobody else in the world has copied for very good reasons. There are very good models between these two extremes that actually work and won’t bankrupt the country.
-
Rejoin the single market and customs union as quickly as possible and implement a coherent industrial strategy and trade policy, focusing on Government support for start-ups in key high-productivity sectors where the UK has an existing competitive advantage and knowledge base (tech, pharmaceuticals, engineering, the arts, finance and professional services, defence, life sciences etc) linking these up with grants, research from our best universities, knowledge clusters and business support networks including a new Government export assistance service for small businesses to help them overcome the costs of legal hurdles and compliance documentation with templates/ paperwork assistance etc.
-
A huge investment in our failing infrastructure (water, internet, road, rail, housing - but with acceptable standards for homebuilding unlike now) and plans for food security, water security, energy security, climate change protection (e.g. flood defences). We currently have some of the very highest energy prices in the entire world. This is hugely harming economic growth. The energy pricing model is completely insane, where all units consumed are priced based on the most expensive energy units in the national mix at a given time. This is entirely artificial and perfectly possible for Government to change instantly. Meanwhile we need to invest far more heavily in Nuclear alongside renewables to provide reliable baseload for the future (thanks Nick Clegg for declaring 15 years ago that it wasn’t worth bothering because it wouldn’t be online for 15 years, when at the time the UK could borrow at negative interest rates, i.e. being paid to borrow the money to build our infrastructure). The economic illiteracy has gone on for a long, long time. While day to day public spending needed to be cut after the financial crisis, we should have borrowed HUGE amounts to invest in infrastructure because we could have done so at a profit before even having build anything!). Energy prices are crippling our businesses and making them uncompetitive. Importing a large amount of essentials commodities like energy makes us extremely reliant on FDI and imports inflation. Markets will be favourable to a coherent long-term investment plan in such areas because of their impact on long-term productivity and growth rate therefore this would not negatively impact the UK credit rating. This would also generate more highly skilled jobs and demand for the apprenticeships per point 2).
-
Stop selling indexed links gilts! Most comparable European countries have a tiny amount of their debt issued on an index-linked basis and are therefore paying much lower interest than us on similar debt levels. This was gross economic mismanagement.
-
Fix the ridiculous UK tax system which is harming productivity. These points are not in priority order and frankly this one should be done immediately because the effect would be almost instantaneous unlike some other items on the list and it is entirely within Government control to fix. Anomalies and perverse incentives little the system at every level. All taxes and welfare should be levied on a household unit basis, as in pretty much every other developed country. Couples could choose to opt out and be separate “household units” splitting their household tax allowances/ thresholds between them equally if they wish to maintain separate finances. Obviously those in HMOs or adult children living with parents would be separate “household units”. This is how the system operates in all sensible countries of which I am aware. Then two households with the same household income will be taxed the same amount regardless of whether they’re a single parent or couple or how the earnings are split between the adults. This is a matter of basic fairness. Income tax does need to rise but this needs to be through the basic rate (due to sheer mathematics). This should be done transparently by simply changing the rate. Fiscal drag is economically damaging and a commitment should be made to uprate all tax thresholds annually with inflation. This can be done on an opt-in basis so households of cohabiting/ married couples who with to maintain separate finances can do so, making the usual spurious point raised about how this would disadvantage women completely moot - i.e. by default once the household unit of adults in a relationship is defined the household tax allowance is split equally between them by default. Only if both parties choose to opt in to share the allowances between them to achieve a more beneficial overall outcome would this happen and would be revocable by either party at any point in time, so financial independence is preserved for those who wish to have it but the compounding of existing disadvantage and creating of perverse economic incentives penalising single people and single parent households would be removed. There is no rational or moral grounds upon which the current system is acceptable as it means that these people are subsidising those in more economically advantageous situations as well as demonstrably harming productivity and creating higher welfare costs and healthcare costs and justice costs as a result of this failure so this needs addressing as a priority if we want a functional economy.
-
As well as the above, the cliff-edges in the tax system need to be removed. Child benefit, childcare funding and the personal allowance should be made universal again, and the universal credit taper rate reduced significantly because there is robust independent economic evidence demonstrating that this would generate more economic growth, reduce long-term welfare dependency and raise tax revenues and economic participation rates significantly. This would also reduce the number of people cutting their hours/ retiring early/ emigrating and therefore reduce skills shortages and the need for immigration. Rationalise the tax system so that pensioners pay NI given they are by far the highest users of welfare and healthcare which it was supposedly meant to fund (obviously we all know it isn’t hypothecated and does no such thing anyway, but there’s no reason they should be exempt). Adjust tax rates to reduce the discrepancy between the level of tax on earned income and investment income (some is justified to generate investment and risk taking, but the current level is too extreme with employees being taxed far too heavily proportionately). There’s absolutely no excuse for this Government or the last one not to have taken the measures in points 10) and 9) to fix the tax system given the very clear evidence of the economic harm that the current system is causing, suppressing growth and productivity. And certainly no excuse to be telling us they need to make “tough decisions” and make cuts/ raise taxes without taking these measures first. Restore the social contract: the quickest way to undermine public services entirely is to exclude those who are actually paying for them from using them. They will be paying their share AND for many others to access the same and in most European countries that is accepted and it works. If you start excluding higher earners from childcare funding etc you create perverse incentives in the tax system, discourage work from our most productive people, and condemn those public services to perpetual decline and cuts and well as creating further social division.
-
Link up Government IT systems properly so that healthcare records, HMRC records, DWP records, CMS records are all linked together. Ask the Estonians if we can buy their integrated IT system from them given our Governments are so terrible at IT projects. This will enable much easier identification of fraud and tax evasion. Digital ID cards should be required and added to traders’ invoices so that their transactions are logged and they cannot do “cash work” and under-declare and make it an offence to pay for work over a de minimis value without this digital ID number to stamp out black market. These ID cards can also be used to reduce black market working generally. There is a huge amount of tax evasion going on. Implement a system like those in other countries where absent parents who don’t pay something resembling 50% of the cost of housing and raising their children (not the laughable current CMS rates) have their driving licences and passports confiscated and if they still don’t pay then they will have CCJs recorded, be unable to access credit/ mortgages and eventually be sent to prison i.e. treating these debts with the same severity as money owed to HMRC for tax (similar to systems in other developed countries, even the US).
-
All benefits other than disability benefits should be contributory like in most European countries, so that they resemble the insurance-based system that they were intended to be. This would enable them to be set at a level where they are a percentage of previous salary, again in line with most European countries, so that they do actually provide a genuine safety net for all sufficient to cover their baked-in existing living costs which is important for the social contract (and those with higher costs will have been paying proportionately more tax to fund this while working). This will also prevent people claiming unemployment benefits as a “career” without ever working at all (unless severely disabled). Benefits like the child element of UC should be replaced by an additional tax allowance based on the number of children (again, a model that’s worked well in other countries for decades) because this encourages work rather than disincentivising it, while still recognising the additional costs involved in raising children.
-
Implement something akin to the EU Directive on Tax Transparency which Brexit was largely designed to avoid being implemented in the UK, requiring publication of the beneficial ownership of all accounts held in UK offshore tax haven territories. Reform rules around transfer pricing which enable large companies to move profits abroad and transfer costs into countries where revenue is generated to eliminate their profits. Reform the rules around dividend distribution linking them to the requirement to provide disclosures on long-term viability so that a company cannot make distributions unless it can demonstrate sufficient cash is being kept in the business to meet long-term investment requirements (e.g. water companies needing to invest in infrastructure as population changes/ upgrades are required).
These would be obvious first steps for a Government genuinely wanting to generate growth and rising living standards. None of it is rocket science.