The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[ozleicester]

A society built on continual growth is unsustainable

[foxes1988]

11 hours ago, Dunge said:

Worth stating that I’m not trying to make a point about immigration or immigrants here. It’s more that I’ve seen a few times now people stating that we have an “underpopulation” problem in this country, and that’s just nonsense. There are too many humans around, across the planet, draining it of its resources. But unless you take a Thanos Was Right approach (ie you’re a lunatic) then there’s nothing you can or should do about that.

 

What we actually have is increasingly a population demographic problem, and that that isn’t going away any time soon. But also that we should be looking at ways to address that beyond eternal population growth.

As I've said earlier what most people actually mean is a unbalanced population which is a problem.  This is always going to be the case when populations start to stop growing I guess but it a tricky one to solve.  What do we do just allow the large older population to eat itself through lack of funds or take money away from already struggling public services in turn leading to poorer health in younger populations.  That's why some immigration is probably a better solution in my mind.

[weller54]

[urban.spaceman]

 

[urban.spaceman]

Favourite one yet

 

 

 

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Favourite one yet

 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

Gordon Brown's time as Prime Minister will be remembered more fondly than any of the Tories in the last 12 years IMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) calculates that the Tory "tax cuts for growth" mini-budget actually INCREASES tax: https://www.ft.com/content/b2dcf5ab-3039-4a6b-9683-51e047b6bcd6

 

The IFS reckons that, because inflation is high, even nominal increases in pay and benefits will push a lot more people above the 19% and 40% tax thresholds, as these are frozen. Meanwhile, others will end up qualifying for less in benefits.

These losses in income via tax/benefits will significantly outweigh the sums people gain from the cuts in the headline tax and N.I. rates. This will apply at all income levels but more so for the poorest.

 

So, even ignoring all the other damage done via interest rates etc.....

Govt tax policies will act AGAINST the proclaimed policy of "cutting tax to stimulate growth". Instead, the mini-budget will increase tax and reduce almost everyone's incomes in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.... 

[rachhere]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) calculates that the Tory "tax cuts for growth" mini-budget actually INCREASES tax: https://www.ft.com/content/b2dcf5ab-3039-4a6b-9683-51e047b6bcd6

 

The IFS reckons that, because inflation is high, even nominal increases in pay and benefits will push a lot more people above the 19% and 40% tax thresholds, as these are frozen. Meanwhile, others will end up qualifying for less in benefits.

These losses in income via tax/benefits will significantly outweigh the sums people gain from the cuts in the headline tax and N.I. rates. This will apply at all income levels but more so for the poorest.

 

So, even ignoring all the other damage done via interest rates etc.....

Govt tax policies will act AGAINST the proclaimed policy of "cutting tax to stimulate growth". Instead, the mini-budget will increase tax and reduce almost everyone's incomes in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.... 

What an absolute car crash

[Sampson]

16 hours ago, Dunge said:

I see it more as looking for alternatives to eternal population growth than alternatives to immigration. ie Immigration is incidental to the problem rather than the problem itself.

Solutions to it include raising the age of retirement and increased efficiency and productivity, likely through automation. The latter is the ideal of course but tends to get swallowed up with finding more work for people to do instead in order to compete with the rest of the world. The world probably needs advancements in the field of food and energy generation ultimately to secure basic standards of living and reduce the amount of human “work” across the planet.

 

Granted, until then we’re probably stuck with the “easy option” of ever-decreasing countryside and farmland through population growth.

But the issue with raising pension age is that you’re then forcing people in their 70s to work and the labour market for people that age is extremely challenging due to a mixture of declining health, discrimination towards older workers and rapidly advancing technology and the lack of time for training/career change. 
 

And there’s tons of research papers on the different challenges in labour market for the over 60s too. I think “increasing the pension age, 70 year olds should just go out and get jobs if they want money” might work in Jake Berry’s world, but it’s not that easy in reality.

 

The European Commission did a report into it a couple of years ago which included looking into greater efficiency and productivity in the labour force which wasn’t viable enough and it was pretty stark about the labour shortages and pension dependency ratio over the next generation  or so. Worth saying they even calculated immigration into the EU was likely to fall as developing countries become more developed.

 

All publicly available to read here btw: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-finance/ip142_en.pdf

 

Population growth and overpopulation is a massive worldwide problem largely due to the developing world. But the ageing population and the old-age dependency ratio is a much bigger problem in the west right now, because all the resources are currently being skewed more and more towards pensions and the higher healthcare support needed of older people.

 

Ultimately the major alternative solution to immigration and getting more tax payers into the UK and most other Western countries is making pensions no longer liveable, prioritising younger patients and doing triage in healthcare and letting the older generations fend for themselves. Either that or force every tax payer to work 80hr weeks or something. 
 

The thing is all of these solutions are pretty unelectable, which is why major parties ignore the issues of population ageing, especially the current government who traditionally poll strongly with the older voters

Edited 6 October 2022 by Sampson

[BenTheFox]

21 hours ago, pedmcl said:

The UK has an underpopulation problem right now, not over population. Roughly 1/3 of the country are in retirement age, and whilst unemployment is low currently, that 1/3 aren't generating the money through spending money into the economy the same way that working people do. 

It is also a big dilemma that the tories face. They've been trying to fly the 'growth' flag for weeks but they cannot realistically achieve this without increasing net migration. Truss and Kwartang know this. However, this is something that many of their voters do not want. 

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, rachhere said:

What an absolute car crash

I've found myself tipping over into the 40% tax rate this year after an incremental payrise of 2.5%.  

 

I know everyone likes to think that people in top rate tax bands "are the wealthy and rich"... but it definitely isn't the case. We shop at Aldi, we pretty much sit in one room at night with one light on, I drive a 13 year Old Car, (albeit, my wife does have a company car) 

 

We certainly aren't living in the land of Milk and Honey. 

 

I think the freezing of the tax bands for a number of years will have put lots of people into the same position.  

 

Personally, if you really want to drive growth, overhaul those tax bands again.... Raise the 20% and 40% threshold into something more reflective of real life. 

 

the 40% threshold kicks in if you are earning above £50,271.....  the mean average salary across the UK is allegedly £38,600..... so you don't have to be too many percentage points above the average to find yourself baying higher rate income tax.... 

 

to give some context here..... the threshold for higher rate tax in terms of earnings has increased by £301 since 2010...... but the mean average salary in the same time has gone from £25,879 to £38,600..... 

 

back then, you would have to be earning double the average salary to pay higher rate tax, these days, it's less than a 1/3rd more. 

 

i'm pretty sure £50k went a lot further 12 years ago than it does today!

 

 

Edited 6 October 2022 by Greg2607

[rachhere]

7 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

I've found myself tipping over into the 40% tax rate this year after an incremental payrise of 2.5%.  

 

I know everyone likes the think that people in top rate tax bands "are the wealthy and rich"... but it definitely isn't the case. We shop at Aldi, we pretty much sit in one room at night with one light on, I drive a 13 year Old Car, (albeit, my wife does have a company car) 

 

We certainly aren't living in the land of Milk and Honey. 

 

I think the freezing of the tax bands for a number of years will have put lots of people into the same position.  

 

Personally, if you really want to drive growth, overhaul those tax bands again.... Raise the 20% and 40% threshold into something more reflective of real life. 

 

the 40% threshold kicks in if you are earning above £50,271.....  the mean average salary across the UK is allegedly £38,600..... so you don't have to be too many percentage points above the average to find yourself baying higher rate income tax.... 

 

to give some context here..... the threshold for higher rate tax in terms of earnings has increased by £301 since 2010...... but the mean average salary in the same time has gone from £25,879 to £38,600..... 

 

i'm pretty sure £50k went a lot further 12 years ago than it does today!

 

 

I can relate to all of the above! 

 

My issue is that they keep applauding themselves for 'solving the cost of living crisis', which in reality all they have done is create much deeper challenges, for what is only a short term solution. 

[Tommy G]

57 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

I've found myself tipping over into the 40% tax rate this year after an incremental payrise of 2.5%.  

 

I know everyone likes to think that people in top rate tax bands "are the wealthy and rich"... but it definitely isn't the case. We shop at Aldi, we pretty much sit in one room at night with one light on, I drive a 13 year Old Car, (albeit, my wife does have a company car) 

 

We certainly aren't living in the land of Milk and Honey. 

 

I think the freezing of the tax bands for a number of years will have put lots of people into the same position.  

 

Personally, if you really want to drive growth, overhaul those tax bands again.... Raise the 20% and 40% threshold into something more reflective of real life. 

 

the 40% threshold kicks in if you are earning above £50,271.....  the mean average salary across the UK is allegedly £38,600..... so you don't have to be too many percentage points above the average to find yourself baying higher rate income tax.... 

 

to give some context here..... the threshold for higher rate tax in terms of earnings has increased by £301 since 2010...... but the mean average salary in the same time has gone from £25,879 to £38,600..... 

 

back then, you would have to be earning double the average salary to pay higher rate tax, these days, it's less than a 1/3rd more. 

 

i'm pretty sure £50k went a lot further 12 years ago than it does today!

 

 

The 40% tax band should be pushed to £60K a year at least - too expensive for the chancellor to do this. The Child benefit charge above £50K - also a joke, that should be abolished. The tax band between £100-£125K (which is 62%!! including NI) is  a shambles and should be reversed. We are taxed way too heavily in this country. No tax free childcare over £100K unless you make AVC to bring your earnings under this. How this is fair, what is you have a couple that are earning £90K each and qualify!

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The 40% tax band should be pushed to £60K a year at least - too expensive for the chancellor to do this. The Child benefit charge above £50K - also a joke, that should be abolished. The tax band between £100-£125K (which is 62%!! including NI) is  a shambles and should be reversed. We are taxed way too heavily in this country. No tax free childcare over £100K unless you make AVC to bring your earnings under this. How this is fair, what is you have a couple that are earning £90K each and qualify!

Assuming this is true for a moment, I'm curious as to why, with this heavy tax base, the less fortunate in the UK are suffering perhaps at a level not seen for some considerable time. What is the problem with public service infrastructure, if it is getting enough or more than it needs in terms of tax income?

[Otis]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Assuming this is true for a moment, I'm curious as to why, with this heavy tax base, the less fortunate in the UK are suffering perhaps at a level not seen for some considerable time. What is the problem with public service infrastructure, if it is getting enough or more than it needs in terms of tax income?

Perhaps there are too many "less fortunate"?

 

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Otis said:

Perhaps there are too many "less fortunate"?

 

And assuming that is true, I'm curious as to the best way to address that.

[Otis]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And assuming that is true, I'm curious as to the best way to address that.

That is indeed a minefield and a fine balance governments have to deal with,  Ranging from reducing benefits to the world by and feckless to Increasing payments to the most in need.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Otis said:

That is indeed a minefield and a fine balance governments have to deal with,  Ranging from reducing benefits to the world by and feckless to Increasing payments to the most in need.

It's certainly a complex issue.

 

However, I might submit that it is better to lean on the side of making sure the most in need are taken care of even if there are some that take advantage of the system as a result (as it will be imperfect).

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Assuming this is true for a moment, I'm curious as to why, with this heavy tax base, the less fortunate in the UK are suffering perhaps at a level not seen for some considerable time. What is the problem with public service infrastructure, if it is getting enough or more than it needs in terms of tax income?

Because we are experiencing inflation at the levels not seen for a long while, soaring prices will affect those less wealthy than the wealthy. This is the main reason

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Because we are experiencing inflation at the levels not seen for a long while, soaring prices will affect those less wealthy than the wealthy. This is the main reason

I'm wondering how a tax cut (unless very accurately targetted and executed) would help with that and the above.

[LanguedocFox]

Well worth watching and sharing.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pofTr1QKiBk

[urban.spaceman]

 

[LanguedocFox]

And this is worth listening to: 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001c65m?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

[weller54]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Splitters!!