“Tax the wealthy” (RR budget) what does this even mean?

[gggddjkki]

I don’t remember anxiously waiting for budgets like we have the last few years earlier on in my adulthood. But when you read statements like this (as I have seen in the headlines today) what do you interpret it to mean? What does taxing the wealthy look like to you? Taxing higher earners more? From what point? Higher taxes on industry?

Perhaps someone with an obviously superior attitude who drafts a 10 point list that oozes disdain for Reform voters at each point, gets their backs up?.

I think you’ll find that I’ve showed equal disdain for Labour and the Conservatives as I have for Reform, if you read my posts. The conversation became overly focused on Reform because lots of Reform voters got furious about me criticising their dear leader and pointing out the complete fantasy of his economic proposals (per his own website) which are so unbelievable and ridiculous that my 8 year old child would laugh at them. I was asked why I think people might be considering voting for such economic lunacy which will be the final nail in the coffin or any prospect of UK economic recovery for another couple of decades at least, so I gave my opinions on that matter in response to the poster who had asked for them.

Predictably, sadly it has created pages and pages of rage and personal attacks from Reform voters claiming that I said things I did not say, and despite me stating multiple times that I’d welcome hearing why other people who are planning to vote Reform to which the factors I listed (which I think account for a large proportion of recent increases in their polling) do not apply because I’d like to understand their perspectives better, unsurprisingly no such rational reasons why they are considering/ intend to vote for Reform that aren’t covered in that 10 point list have been forthcoming so far and they have preferred to engage in personal attacks on me.

However, I also posted earlier in the thread quotes of Reeve’s pre-election lies about tax and criticisms of her idiotic economic policies which have made a difficult situation much worse than it had to be and are now creating an economic doom loop, and the utter insanity of her determination (it seems) to take the same approach to this as last year where she thinks raising taxes will fix the problem (newsflash: it won’t). I was also immensely critical of the procession of useless Conservative Prime Ministers over the last decade or so, in particular Johnson and the lettuce. And now they have Badenoch (someone I’ve met in person several times and found to be immensely dull and slow), and their prospective alternative is Jenrick?

I have no political bias. My concerns are economic competence, data, evidence and outcomes.

All I can say is people will look back at the history books and laugh, that workable solutions to improve things were available but none of these dullards in any political party were able to comprehend them and put them to the electorate and instead are focused on their petty little hobby horses which will make no meaningful improvement to the living standards of anybody in the UK, or their personal power trips, and that the electorate actually tolerated and endorsed this repeatedly and got furious with anybody who suggested it wasn’t a good plan. Nobody will be laughing for the next 20 years or so, though, at least.

You seem agitated and frustrated that people don't agree with you and instead have their own views. You think they are wrong; that's fine. But no one appreciates someone relentlessly ramming their own views down other people's necks particularly if they do it in such a superior and derogatory way.(I remind you again of your 10 points. Your language was in no way "dealing with facts"). I thought we learned this in 6th form debating society?

I didn’t go to college somewhere where there was a “sixth form debating society”, and such a thing would not have been something I’d have been interested in, anyway. It sounds like a hell composed of people who like the sound of their own voices.

I am sorry if my way of expressing myself has irritated you or, “got your back up”, as you put it. I’m autistic so that happens sometimes unintentionally. It’s just the way that I use language, and is not a personal insult to you. I use words quite precisely but straight-forwardly per their actual definitions which is why your attempts to pretend they mean something else are frustrating when people invent meanings which were not there and then get offended by the things they’ve invented which were not said. Being offended by your own thoughts and then attributing them to others and trying to argue with them about you having offended yourself is weird.

Your post appears yet again to confuse opinions and beliefs with evidence and data. People can believe whatever they wish to believe, obviously. My concern is that we have an electorate where a significant proportion of people seem to vote based on opinion and beliefs rather than evidence and data, and politicians who therefore pander to this because it becomes the only way to get elected, and therefore politicians don’t create evidence-based policy and law so negative economic effects continue to be exacerbated. There is clear evidence that this is one of the main reasons why our country is now in such economic decline. This impacts everyone and creates a cycle of ever-declining living standards which will not change until this changes. It’s quite possible to vote for something that isn’t aligned with your personal preferences or beliefs because you recognise that the outcome of it will be better overall and ultimately democracy will only be successful if it leads to rational choices: an unfortunately inaccurate presumption in pretty much all literature about the foundation of democratic society is that the electorate will make rational choices but unfortunately this is not the case.

The conflation of belief/ opinion with evidence/ data is very concerning and has been increasing for some time now. This inevitably leads to polarisation, instability, further economic decline, sleep-walking into authoritarianism or, often, war or total societal collapse. These patterns are evident in history over and over again. It is therefore in all of our interests that people examine possible solutions to the UK’s current problems rationally based on evidence and that public discourse based on facts and data and credible solutions is reestablished in order that we can save ourselves from this doom spiral which seems to mainly involve people shouting at each other and blaming each other or being rude to each other or banging on about personal bugbears which are less than an immaterial rounding error and make no significant difference whatsoever to the national budget, but not actually proposing any viable solutions at all to anything that would make things better for everyone.

As long as this continues the decline will continue, and if we elect even more extreme people with even more extreme and divisive rhetoric and even less viable economic plans then, quite obviously, things will get a whole lot worse and much more quickly.

It’s a sorry state of affairs but ultimately there is a lot of truth in the saying that “a country gets the Government that it deserves”. While a significant enough proportion of the electorate continue to behave in this manner and refuse to engage in any calm, rational discussion based on evidence and prefer to be fed rage-inducing angry and divisive messages that offer no viable solution anyway, that is exactly what politicians will feed them, hence politics having polarised with more and more of the electorate having moved to the extremes and the political parties having followed them and feeding them what they want, to everyone’s detriment.

Has it improved things so far? No. Will it, if we go even further down the same road, from one extreme to the other? No, obviously not.

Meanwhile the proportion of the electorate who are reasonable and rational and don’t have extreme views and simply want competent Government and sensible economic management so that they can see there is a path towards an upwards trajectory in the economy and living standards are stranded in the centre between these warring factions of vocal extremists with no politicians to represent them at all because the centre ground, moderation, competence and general decency and respect have been entirely abandoned.

You can also bet that whatever level was set it would of course then be frozen in perpetuity (like the £100k tax threshold that hasn’t moved for what, 15 years now?) and, therefore, before you know it the politicians’ little friend Fiscal Drag will mean that suddenly over 50% of the households in the country are paying it. Of course if the currency is totally devalued by even higher inflation due to further mismanagement (we already have the highest inflation rate in the G7) then that will happen even more quickly… this is how these things work. Establish the principle. Sell it as saying it’s a tax on “the rich”. And then gradually apply it to more and more people.

For example, the higher rate tax threshold where the 40p rate kicks in would now start at around £90k, not £50k, if it had been uprated with inflation continuously. Some countries like Belgium mandate in law that all thresholds must be updated for inflation annually automatically unless the Government passes a bill specifically stating that they won’t, which forces them to be accountable and justify it to the public. That is a much better and more accountable system.

They will probably go after the easiest targets like Business owners and high earners rather than billionaires.
Oh well, guess we get screwed yet again

Except it has changed public sector pensions from final salary to lifetime average.

Have a look at your wording in your 10 point list. It wasn't factual or straightforward at all. It was a list of insults. And what you think is the right way to run an economy might not be the same as the next person. Hence socialism v capitalism. Conservative v Labour. For example. Doesn't mean you are correct.

OK.. not 6th form debating society if that sounds so awful to you. Did your school teach you to put forward an argument without resorting to insulting the intelligence of someone that disagrees with you? If not, firstly that's a shame. And secondly that explains a lot.

It will take decades for that to help matters. Existing pension liability won't change until people pop off although that may explain the rush in the Assisted Dying Bill.

There were big peaks in the birth rate in 1950 and 1965. The pension liability for the 1950 cohort will rapidly diminish any time now, probably accompanied by a huge transfer of wealth to the next generation down. In 20 years the current high demand for pensions will largely be over and it will return to normal levels.

That's interesting. The sums are eye-watering so hopefully we can weather it.

Will you finally give up on this weird obsession with teachers and repeatedly asserting or implying that I am a teacher when you have been told unequivocally that I am not? I have worked in finance throughout my career, in various capacities and roles within professional services, companies and financial institutions, and done work with Governmental organisations, all within the field of economics/ finance. I don’t understand why you are making this discussion personal or what you think doing so adds to the thread and how you think this is constructive in any way. Or, indeed, appropriate and in line with the “Talk Guidelines”.

I work with data, facts, evidence, numbers. This suits me very well as someone autistic. I haven’t the faintest interest in “echo chambers”; in fact, that’s precisely what I’ve been expressing concern about for much of the thread, stating repeatedly that to start to improve things there needs to be respectful public discourse with people genuinely engaging with each other to find evidence-based solutions that a majority will support which will have better outcomes so that the UK can set a course which will actually improve the economy and, therefore, people’s living standards. Otherwise there will be more polarisation, more unpleasant behaviour towards people who are perceived to be “on the other side” such as that you are exhibiting (even when someone like me has stated they have no political affiliation and disdain for all political parties), and inevitably we will then end up with yet more incompetent leadership and further decline.

I hated school and, despite getting straight As, found it absolute torture and couldn’t get out of there quickly enough, which is understandable I think given I’ve stated that I am autistic. My children are now suffering the same fate as it seems nothing has changed in the last few decades to make it any better.

Of course you wouldn’t know any that because I am a stranger on the internet, which is why your repeated assertions about this are so bizarre and seem to betray a very weird obsession about teachers. I have no idea what underlies that and, frankly, am not particularly interested, but it would be nice if you would stop this weirdness as I don’t think it’s adding anything to the thread except making you look rather deranged.

The idea that I’d choose to spend my life in such an environment (even if it paid several times as much so wouldn’t involve a huge reduction in income) is absurd and made me laugh the first time I read your bizarre insinuation that I am a teacher. It has, however, become less amusing as we progressed to the 6th or 7th time of you posting your weirdly determined posts asserting that you think I am a teacher, and over again.

I hated school because I’m autistic but I haven’t developed a weird obsession about it like you seem to have done. What happened to you there that has made you like this?

You really come across as a spiteful and unpleasant person - you are being deliberately goady. It’s grim.

Again, my comments haven’t been about people’s political or “moral” beliefs or preferences. Those will always differ. I’m talking about data and evidence.

There is no shortage of evidence in the world today. There are various economic models around the world and there is copious evidence about the economic and societal effects of different policies, over long-term periods. The UK isn’t feeling its way in the dark and needing to say “oh, let’s try this and see what happens!” when pretty much every variation of every way of structuring public institutions like healthcare, education, and implementing welfare or pensions or taxation etc have been tried and tested for us already elsewhere. It is already quite possible to ascertain what is effective and not effective, what creates perverse incentives, what improves things, what makes things worse, what provides good value for money and raises living standards and what does not.

These are not opinions, they are evidenced facts. This isn’t about “beliefs”. I don’t know why you appear to be unable to grasp this.

Within the parameters of the facts on what we know works, and what we know does not work, as evidenced by this empirical data, there are of course variations to make things slightly more “left wing” or “right wing” (although I hate these terms and think again that they are a way to pigeon hole people when the majority of people aren’t extreme in one sense or the other, although it can appear that way because the most extreme people are often the loudest and most opinionated). But a good start would be to look at the copious evidence available which shows what actually works - in terms of improving living standards for everybody in the country - and structure our public institutions, public spending and tax policy within parameters that are based on that evidence, don’t you think?

If not, again, I’d like to hear what alternative approach you think would create better outcomes for the people of the UK, and why.

Also, by the way, age has been controlled for, obviously, in those analyses of the data, along with income and many other potential confounding factors. The statistically significant correlation between education level and voting choices persists across countries. Frankly, it’s a bit mad to suggest that the level of education that someone has had would have no impact at all on their ability to assess information and evidence, even in a country like the UK where the general quality of education is quite poor, because that is one of the main purposes of education.

I’m interested (genuinely! This is not sarcastic) in why you are so adamant that this isn’t the case despite all of the available data showing the same correlation that it is the case; and why you equate education levels to someone’s level of intelligence when (pesky data again!) shows clearly that these are not the same thing, yet you have implied repeatedly that being less educated means that somebody is stupid, i.e. that intelligence and knowledge are the same.

Thank you. I agree. Some of the comments here have been really unpleasant, as well as very weird! It’s good to know that some other posters also don’t think this is appropriate. I don’t know who reported this poster - it wasn’t me - but it is depressing that so many posters seem incapable of a robust but factual discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

For the sake of balance, the PP has had posts removed for their repeated assertion that any person who would vote for Reform, is either a ‘racist’, or a ‘racist sympathiser’.

As I say, for the sake of balance.

Who has?

I honestly don’t want to get embroiled or dragging into any divisive, nasty culture-war type nonsense. That’s precisely what I’ve been saying is causing the problems.

It just seems you can’t have a rational discussion about public policy these days without this starting, from both extremes. It doesn’t bode well for any of us.

You wrote a ten point list on why reform voters are racist and stupid, it’s why so many comments have been removed. This sort of attitude may wash with a classroom of 14 year olds but you’re going to get pulled up on it with adults.

You posted ‘some of the comments on here have been really unpleasant’, and you referenced ‘personal attacks’, in response to another poster.

Said poster had previously made a sweeping generalisation about those who would vote for Reform.

My point being - posters on both sides of the argument, have evidently resorted to similar tactics.

No, it will not, because the birth rate is declining rapidly. A pension scheme based on a ponzi-type system will always be unstable in the face of changing demographics and life expectancies (although these have started to decline in recent years in the UK - an indictment of the economic mismanagement I’ve been talking about) they have not declined significantly enough that this or raising state pension ages will offset the impact of the ponzi-system with a population which will fall exponentially over the next few generations if birth rates continue on their current trajectory.

Again, this comes down to lack of understanding of mathematics and the exponential effect on population size that falling birth rates will have across generations. Some countries (e.g. South Korea) are ahead of us on this curve and the societal impact is enormous. Many countries that can see the writing on the wall are putting very family-friendly policies in place to try to boost their birth rates with big tax cuts for families, lots of financial support, free childcare. As usual, the UK policy position has no such foresight. It is going to be a massive problem regardless, made far worse if our public institutions have not been reformed to remove any unsustainable ponzi-scheme systems before the impact of it hits. The Boomers should have done this decades ago but the problem absolutely has not gone away. Not at all.

Much as the UK is now anti-immigration, in the future it is likely to be crying out for immigration once this population collapse hits. Not one country/ civilisation in history has ever reversed this trend in population collapse with falling birthrates once it has set in. This time there also won’t be any immigrants to plug the gap because birth rates are following the same falling trend in pretty much every country outside sub-Saharan Africa. But I’m sure the ostrich-syndrome approach of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring demographic trends and their inevitable mathematical implications will make everything work out very positively, just like it has done to date…

Comments stating that anyone who would vote for Reform are automatically racist, have no place on these threads.

MNHQ agrees.

Ok. Thanks. I hadn’t read all of the PP’s posts so didn’t know that, I was simply responding to what they’d said to me.

I think I’ve been clear that I don’t support extremists of any kind. In fact, I hold them entirely responsible for the position that the country is now in, which is why I also don’t believe that further extremism is the solution.

We are in agreement here.