Reply to: Now we're going back to the 1970s

[Peoplesoft bloke]

As usual, The Eye is right on the money

[jamesbrown]

We are not a serious country, we're an old people's home and we've handed the keys and a clown suit to PwC to manage it for us. Until we elect serious politicians that are able to make highly controversial decisions (including during times of extreme crisis, like 2008 and 2020), which mitigate public debt by taxing people on modest/middle incomes to pay for it, rather than pretending that "other people richer than us can pay" and then investing in the basic priorities that have little/no political pay-off, but are integral to non-clownshoe statehood, like defence, transport and social/health care, we are d00med!

Nice graph from twatter earlier today, public debt growth since 2002.

[sadkingbilly]

OK, fair enough.

So now we know the state pension is seen as a benefit. Wonder why it's not tax exempt then...

In all civilised countries, pensions and unemployment insurance are NOT 'benefits'. it's a right earned by deductions from income over a working life.
that's one of the main issues in this country.
Some kind of puritan god bothering hangover from the middle ages.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

+1. But need a suitable inflation measure that actually reflects peoples' inflation experience, so not CPI.

I'd have been happy to leave it as it was. The triple lock was a Tory reaction to Pensioners getting a 75p rise one year during the Blair years when Brown was chancellor.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

OK, fair enough.

So now we know the state pension is seen as a benefit. Wonder why it's not tax exempt then...

State Pension has been taxable since 1946.
Thatcher made unemployment benefit and some others taxable in 1981/2.

[Protagoras]

I'm a pensioner, AKA old fart, but the triple lock is ridiculous and unnafordable. Keeping in line with inflation only would be reasonable.

+1. But need a suitable inflation measure that actually reflects peoples' inflation experience, so not CPI.

[xoggoth]

I'm a pensioner, AKA old fart, but the triple lock is ridiculous and unnafordable. Keeping in line with inflation only would be reasonable.

[malvolio]

Read it again.

"Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025-26 we will spend £177.7 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £146.1 billion in 2025 to 2026."

If £177.7 billion is 55%, that implies that the total social security expenditure is £323.1 billion.

The State Pension is forecast to be £146.1 billion, so you can divide that by £323.1 billion and multiply by 100. That comes out at 45%.

OK, fair enough.

So now we know the state pension is seen as a benefit. Wonder why it's not tax exempt then...

[hobnob]

No, that implies that 45% of welfare expenditure goes to pensioners. Does that include the pension itself...? After all, a lot of pensioners get additional welfare payments.

Read it again.

"Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025-26 we will spend £177.7 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £146.1 billion in 2025 to 2026."

If £177.7 billion is 55%, that implies that the total social security expenditure is £323.1 billion.

The State Pension is forecast to be £146.1 billion, so you can divide that by £323.1 billion and multiply by 100. That comes out at 45%.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Blasted boomer coffin dodgers. What did they ever do for us? .

[malvolio]

You said "now", which is technically correct, but it's not a recent change. It's also worth noting that this specifically applies to income tax (as opposed to all tax income that HMRC receives, e.g. corporation tax and dividend tax).

Full Fact did an article about that recently:
Welfare payments have not exceeded income tax ‘for the first time ever’ – Full Fact
"Welfare spending, which includes state pensions, has been higher than income tax in every year since at least 2013/14."

They said "at least", because they didn't go back any further, so I don't know when welfare spending was last lower than income tax.

Also:
"Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025-26 we will spend £177.7 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £146.1 billion in 2025 to 2026."
Guidance and methodology: Benefit expenditure and caseload tables - GOV.UK
That implies that the state pension is about 45% of total welfare payments, and I think that has more to do with a demographic shift than government policy (unless you're arguing that the triple lock should have been scrapped).

No, that implies that 45% of welfare expenditure goes to pensioners. Does that include the pension itself...? After all, a lot of pensioners get additional welfare payments.

[hobnob]

Now we have a welfare bill greater than tax income.

You said "now", which is technically correct, but it's not a recent change. It's also worth noting that this specifically applies to income tax (as opposed to all tax income that HMRC receives, e.g. corporation tax and dividend tax).

Full Fact did an article about that recently:
Welfare payments have not exceeded income tax ‘for the first time ever’ – Full Fact
"Welfare spending, which includes state pensions, has been higher than income tax in every year since at least 2013/14."

They said "at least", because they didn't go back any further, so I don't know when welfare spending was last lower than income tax.

Also:
"Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2025-26 we will spend £177.7 billion on benefits for pensioners in GB. This includes spending on the State Pension which is forecast to be £146.1 billion in 2025 to 2026."
Guidance and methodology: Benefit expenditure and caseload tables - GOV.UK
That implies that the state pension is about 45% of total welfare payments, and I think that has more to do with a demographic shift than government policy (unless you're arguing that the triple lock should have been scrapped).

[malvolio]

I don't think it's a controversial view at all, in fact it's exceedingly common to encounter such blanket assertions online from people with right wing views, of which there's no shortage.

Just as it would be a mistake to pretend everything Thatcher did was evil and wrong, it would be silly to imagine that some of the worst aspects from the last 40 or so years can't (and shouldn't) be attended to.

Also the idea that "socialism reasserted itself" seems a little far-fetched to me, although it's straight from the Trump playbook where anything to left of him is Marxism.

We're a mixed economy, have been since at least WW2, and arguably since industrialisation. We aren't, and never have been, a broadly Socialist state.

The Overton window has moved to the right since the early 1980s, so that even mildly socialist ideas have been characterised as extreme left, even though a lot of them wouldn't be out of place in modern liberal democracies elsewhere in the world.

It is a characteristic of Trump and increasingly the right wing in this country to pretend to be anti-establishment and some kind of persecuted minority, but it's not founded in reality at all.

One thing that Thatcher understood and practised really well was the idea that once your policies are unpopular enough to threaten your power, you need to get new ones (or have a war). The myth of her never changing direction is just that, a myth perpetuated by her apologists.

Define "Right Wing"... I'm a shade to the right of centre, in that I prefer a capitalist-based society (mainly 'cos it works), provided it doesn't leave the disadvantaged behind. Which Thatcher did to an extent and was one of her main failures

Ditto "socialist", which used to be a bit to the left of centre, where the disadvantaged were far better supported out of overall taxation. Don't forget Blair was a centrist, Brown a genuine socialist.

Now we have a welfare bill greater than tax income and anyone even slightly to the right is decried as "Far Right" so clearly a fascist loon.

As I said. you aren't allowed to be centrist any more. Tribalism rules.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Probably true. The "issue" was that the 70s were a disaster, the 80s got us out of it, the 90s went quite well until socialism reasserted itself and the 2000s have been a story of continual decline. given that, any attempt to take us back before the 80s would be a disaster. That, sadly, appears to be a controversial view.

I don't think it's a controversial view at all, in fact it's exceedingly common to encounter such blanket assertions online from people with right wing views, of which there's no shortage.

Just as it would be a mistake to pretend everything Thatcher did was evil and wrong, it would be silly to imagine that some of the worst aspects from the last 40 or so years can't (and shouldn't) be attended to.

Also the idea that "socialism reasserted itself" seems a little far-fetched to me, although it's straight from the Trump playbook where anything to left of him is Marxism.

We're a mixed economy, have been since at least WW2, and arguably since industrialisation. We aren't, and never have been, a broadly Socialist state.

The Overton window has moved to the right since the early 1980s, so that even mildly socialist ideas have been characterised as extreme left, even though a lot of them wouldn't be out of place in modern liberal democracies elsewhere in the world.

It is a characteristic of Trump and increasingly the right wing in this country to pretend to be anti-establishment and some kind of persecuted minority, but it's not founded in reality at all.

One thing that Thatcher understood and practised really well was the idea that once your policies are unpopular enough to threaten your power, you need to get new ones (or have a war). The myth of her never changing direction is just that, a myth perpetuated by her apologists.

[malvolio]

I agree but probably not for the same reasons. Oddly, any attempt to challenge/question/disagree with points made by some posters is met with a series of weird unrelated and condescending posts instead of addressing the actual issues raised.

Probably true. The "issue" was that the 70s were a disaster, the 80s got us out of it, the 90s went quite well until socialism reasserted itself and the 2000s have been a story of continual decline. given that, any attempt to take us back before the 80s would be a disaster. That, sadly, appears to be a controversial view.