Good grief, it is depressing listening to all and sundry pontificate on the need to increase defence spending and how it can only be paid for by cutting the benefits bill.
Common sense I think. As I am neither an economist (ike you) nor an expert on defence I would be interested in your observations on Paul Mason's thoughtful piece suggesting an increase in defence expenditure funded by borrowing
One question is why it now takes seven years to build a frigate. According to AI, "During World War II, building a frigate typically took between 5 and 18 months". Of course there was a war on and economies of scale etc, but that was without modern machinery, robots etc. The extraordinary incompetence and corruption of UK defence procurement mean we spend huge amounts on stuff that arrives late, doesn't work, and is no longer required. The other big issue highlighted by the war in Ukraine is the importance of resilient infrastructure - power and water supplies, information networks, cables, manufacturing, shelters etc. I guess we'll have to do without.
I do not understand your bashing of pensioners, Jonty. I wish you had to make ends meet on on less than £1,000 a month at the age of 68 and sick. The "undeserved" triple lock gave me an extra tenner a month this year and you think people like me are stinking rich? Do you know what what's left of that tenner as a result of inflation?
What also surprises me that very few so-called commentators discuss wealth tax and raising the level of corporate tax. If Starmer and co are leaders, let them make a case and appeal to the sense of patriotism and civic duty in those who genuinely have the most.
I understand it Adam and for the majority of pensioners it's justified (present company excepted). The state pension is the single biggest item of expenditure from the welfare budget, at 40%, so if we're going to reduce welfare spending then it's obvious that has to be considered for cutting, and removing the triple lock seems the obvious way to do it. Also, only 13% of pensioners rely SOLELY on the state pension i.e. 87% have other sources of income, so we really need to stop this "poor pensioners" narrative. Some pensioners are struggling, like your good self, but the majority aren't.
It was the same with the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA). 11.1 million pensioners were in receipt of the WFA when Labour came to power, but because it wasn't means-tested 8 million pensioners who didn't need it were receiving it. Unfortunately, Rachel Reeves handled the removal of it through means-testing badly because she only allowed the 1.5 million pensioners in receipt of Pension Credit to be eligible for the WFA, but that left another 1.5 million pensioners who were just above the PC threshold who DID need it, but were unable to get it. It was suggested by Martin Lewis (Money Saving Expert, as was) that she could extend the WFA to pensioners living in properties in council tax bands A - D because whilst this may pick up a few outliers who still didn't need it, the majority would be less well-off pensioners (the logic being that wealthier pensioners live in properties in higher CT bands).
Of course there IS an alternative to reducing the welfare budget - tax the ultra-wealthy more. Patriotic Millionaires UK, an organisation of 80+ millionaires, campaign to be taxed MORE - they literally want to pay more tax because they are genuinely patriotic and understand that a country with a larger tax income can maintain and improve its public services and EVERYONE in our society benefits. Of course, every time this is suggested, the millionaires and billionaires who DON'T want to be taxed more start squealing and trot out the hackneyed old line "Well, we'll have to move abroad then". Yeah, because that's really patriotic, isn't it? Which brings me to my final point: 18 of Farage's/Reform's top 22 donors live abroad, including British-born Christopher Harborne, who lives in Thailand. If he wants to influence British politics and our way of life, why isn't he living here? And PAYING UK TAXES?
Common sense I think. As I am neither an economist (ike you) nor an expert on defence I would be interested in your observations on Paul Mason's thoughtful piece suggesting an increase in defence expenditure funded by borrowing
One question is why it now takes seven years to build a frigate. According to AI, "During World War II, building a frigate typically took between 5 and 18 months". Of course there was a war on and economies of scale etc, but that was without modern machinery, robots etc. The extraordinary incompetence and corruption of UK defence procurement mean we spend huge amounts on stuff that arrives late, doesn't work, and is no longer required. The other big issue highlighted by the war in Ukraine is the importance of resilient infrastructure - power and water supplies, information networks, cables, manufacturing, shelters etc. I guess we'll have to do without.
I do not understand your bashing of pensioners, Jonty. I wish you had to make ends meet on on less than £1,000 a month at the age of 68 and sick. The "undeserved" triple lock gave me an extra tenner a month this year and you think people like me are stinking rich? Do you know what what's left of that tenner as a result of inflation?
What also surprises me that very few so-called commentators discuss wealth tax and raising the level of corporate tax. If Starmer and co are leaders, let them make a case and appeal to the sense of patriotism and civic duty in those who genuinely have the most.
I understand it Adam and for the majority of pensioners it's justified (present company excepted). The state pension is the single biggest item of expenditure from the welfare budget, at 40%, so if we're going to reduce welfare spending then it's obvious that has to be considered for cutting, and removing the triple lock seems the obvious way to do it. Also, only 13% of pensioners rely SOLELY on the state pension i.e. 87% have other sources of income, so we really need to stop this "poor pensioners" narrative. Some pensioners are struggling, like your good self, but the majority aren't.
It was the same with the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA). 11.1 million pensioners were in receipt of the WFA when Labour came to power, but because it wasn't means-tested 8 million pensioners who didn't need it were receiving it. Unfortunately, Rachel Reeves handled the removal of it through means-testing badly because she only allowed the 1.5 million pensioners in receipt of Pension Credit to be eligible for the WFA, but that left another 1.5 million pensioners who were just above the PC threshold who DID need it, but were unable to get it. It was suggested by Martin Lewis (Money Saving Expert, as was) that she could extend the WFA to pensioners living in properties in council tax bands A - D because whilst this may pick up a few outliers who still didn't need it, the majority would be less well-off pensioners (the logic being that wealthier pensioners live in properties in higher CT bands).
Of course there IS an alternative to reducing the welfare budget - tax the ultra-wealthy more. Patriotic Millionaires UK, an organisation of 80+ millionaires, campaign to be taxed MORE - they literally want to pay more tax because they are genuinely patriotic and understand that a country with a larger tax income can maintain and improve its public services and EVERYONE in our society benefits. Of course, every time this is suggested, the millionaires and billionaires who DON'T want to be taxed more start squealing and trot out the hackneyed old line "Well, we'll have to move abroad then". Yeah, because that's really patriotic, isn't it? Which brings me to my final point: 18 of Farage's/Reform's top 22 donors live abroad, including British-born Christopher Harborne, who lives in Thailand. If he wants to influence British politics and our way of life, why isn't he living here? And PAYING UK TAXES?