- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#1
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 01:47:01 AMIIRC this annoying tinkering started with Gordon Brown, who wanted to increase taxes but also wanted to avoid the poltitical downside of increasing the main rates. It was relatively ok at first but the complications and consequences have mounted up over the years.
I am against means-testing, partly from listening to the elders when I was a child and the horrific means-testing imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. But also because when you take a benefit away from the well-off there is a tendency for that benefit to wither on the vine.
So, yes, I want my WFA back
I suggest that we raise the main rates of income tax but get rid of all the silly rules leading to the "lumpiness"
shown above. We also need to start taxing residential property properly by a return to the rates. As it stands a Russian oligarch in a £50m mansion in Mayfair pays barely more in property taxes then me in my northern terraced house. Bring the rates back, after all, it is very hard to hide a house or take it abroad.
I am against means-testing, partly from listening to the elders when I was a child and the horrific means-testing imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. But also because when you take a benefit away from the well-off there is a tendency for that benefit to wither on the vine.
So, yes, I want my WFA back
I suggest that we raise the main rates of income tax but get rid of all the silly rules leading to the "lumpiness"
shown above. We also need to start taxing residential property properly by a return to the rates. As it stands a Russian oligarch in a £50m mansion in Mayfair pays barely more in property taxes then me in my northern terraced house. Bring the rates back, after all, it is very hard to hide a house or take it abroad.
#2
Off the Record / Re: Climate Change/Mass Extinc...
Last post by HVC - Today at 12:48:54 AMQuote from: garbon on Today at 12:43:12 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on July 04, 2025, 10:55:21 AMProblem with A/C in non-wet and windy Europe
(Better) insulation and blinds persianas in Castilian and Portuguese, opened in the morning and at night and closed during the day would be a good start, Southern Europe has been doing that for a long time.
This is an odd European affliction though as a/c works perfectly fine in dry, windy, desert climates like that in southern California.
And super humid climates like southern Ontario. I too have heard this complaint from some Europeans before and I don't get it. We go from super humid outdoors to AC indoor all the time.
#3
Off the Record / Re: Climate Change/Mass Extinc...
Last post by garbon - Today at 12:43:12 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on July 04, 2025, 10:55:21 AMProblem with A/C in non-wet and windy Europe
(Better) insulation and blinds persianas in Castilian and Portuguese, opened in the morning and at night and closed during the day would be a good start, Southern Europe has been doing that for a long time.
This is an odd European affliction though as a/c works perfectly fine in dry, windy, desert climates like that in southern California.
#4
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Tonitrus - July 04, 2025, 08:43:24 PMQuote from: Bauer on July 04, 2025, 02:57:48 PMPutin needs to save face somehow to get peace then, but it seems like he's not willing to accept anything but victory.
Probably because he thinks he can get away with it. And it appears that he will.
#5
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - July 04, 2025, 08:04:20 PMYeah the child benefit thing is bad - as Dan Neidle has explained if you have kids you're basically better off earning either £99,999 or about £145,000 but literally nothing in between because of the impact of losing child benefit (plus the personal allowance being clawed back).
Even excluding the child benefit there are weird lumpy bits of our system. So from Dan Neidle again, the marginal rates for someone who has a student loan with three kids:
I think taxation should be progressive but that just makes no sense
The 65%+ marginal rate on £50-60k is someone losing child benefit, the 70% marginal rate from £100-125k is someone's personal allowance being clawed back. As you say add in losing childcare subsidy and it's a big hit for people (on very high salaries) because of how we means test and withdraw benefits and clawback tax etc. It should be more coherent but that would require a more deeper more thoughtful reform.
Even excluding the child benefit there are weird lumpy bits of our system. So from Dan Neidle again, the marginal rates for someone who has a student loan with three kids:
I think taxation should be progressive but that just makes no sense
The 65%+ marginal rate on £50-60k is someone losing child benefit, the 70% marginal rate from £100-125k is someone's personal allowance being clawed back. As you say add in losing childcare subsidy and it's a big hit for people (on very high salaries) because of how we means test and withdraw benefits and clawback tax etc. It should be more coherent but that would require a more deeper more thoughtful reform. #6
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Josquius - July 04, 2025, 07:37:05 PMKind of good news re: reform.
2 local council bi-elections. One where the reform councillor decided he didn't want to be a councillor after all and one where he was ineligible to be a councilor...
The one down south was a tory win, the local one saw the lib dems win with a close run 3 way contest.
Reforms recent success does seem to have frightened people into turning out.
The trouble with the winter fuel allowance is they made it so all or nothing. A hard wall at which you suddenly no longer get it. This doesn't make sense to me. Why couldn't they have made it a gradual phasing out?
If they want to raise tax revenue I'm still available to brief them on my council tax reforms that take into account local values and encourage density and green land use.
Or. You know. I guess they could just leave everything as it is but update the values. If they're lazy.
A smaller fix but they really need to stop the silliness of forcing people on larger salaries to pay back their child benefit the next year (or the one after rather) . Check their earnings and only pay them the amount they're due in the first place...
2 local council bi-elections. One where the reform councillor decided he didn't want to be a councillor after all and one where he was ineligible to be a councilor...
The one down south was a tory win, the local one saw the lib dems win with a close run 3 way contest.
Reforms recent success does seem to have frightened people into turning out.
The trouble with the winter fuel allowance is they made it so all or nothing. A hard wall at which you suddenly no longer get it. This doesn't make sense to me. Why couldn't they have made it a gradual phasing out?
If they want to raise tax revenue I'm still available to brief them on my council tax reforms that take into account local values and encourage density and green land use.
Or. You know. I guess they could just leave everything as it is but update the values. If they're lazy.
A smaller fix but they really need to stop the silliness of forcing people on larger salaries to pay back their child benefit the next year (or the one after rather) . Check their earnings and only pay them the amount they're due in the first place...
#7
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - July 04, 2025, 04:34:27 PMI actually kind of agree on the point. But I think those examples are a sign of another problem in my view that I don't think they're particularly connected to reality. That reads to me like spin, or cope by a kindly Labour supporter/voter.
Winter fuel allowance, for example, the "means test" the government adopted was whether or not pensioners received Pension Credit which is a benefit for low income pensioners. Practically that means people with a pension income (state and private combined) of less than £12,000 per year (single pensioners) or £18,000 per year (couples) - and for context someone who receives ONLY their state pension will get £11,973 per year. They didn't means test to exclude a few rich people. WFA used to be a universal benefit and they removed it from 90% of the elderly. I think the issue with it - as with the benefits cuts - is that it wasn't about "reform" which requires thought, laying the groundwork, building the argument and then a set of changes. It was driven by the Treasury needing to find x billion of cuts so the OBR could make their sums add up - combined with the Treasury's institutional hatred of universal benefits (which is why they've suggested the same policy to Gordon Brown in 1997 and George Osborne in 2010, they were just politically smart enough to say the policy upside of £1.5 billion is not worth the political pain of taking money away from 10 million pensioners). There were pensioners who are receiving housing benefit and other benefits who had the WFA taken away. The idea this is "taxing the rich" is bullshit.
On the farmer's land point there is a huge discrepancy between the Treasury and DEFRA's statistics. I think it's basically because they're looking at different things so the Treasury are looking at claims within inheritance tax last year, while DEFRA are looking at farm size and value. There's no doubt that it's an inheitance tax loophole (see Jeremy Clarkson) - but the Treasury estimate that basically on 25% of farms will be impacted, DEFRA's estimate is that it's about two thirds. I think whether it's 25% or two thirds will have a big impact on how "fair" it is perceived to be and, indeed, whether it's only affecting a few rich people.
On tax more broadly - this is where I think people see Tory and think Republican but what they did is very different and why I'd be a dreadful politiician
So the Tories left (and we still have) tax at its highest share of GDP since the war (because we're not America and low growth since 2005-8, plus the crash, then covid and energy price cap has had a big impact on our debt position). But on a very narrow base - a large part of that is because the Tories big tax reform over the last 14 years was steadily increasing the personal allowance - so it went from around 25% of average earnings all the way through the 90s and 2000s to peaking at 45% of average earnings in 2019-20. They didn't focus on tax cuts for the rich but massively narrowing the tax base (or as they put it "removing the lowest earning from tax").
To that Redditer's post - people earning over £100k a year get their personal allowance clawed back by HMRC, so every £2 you earn over £100k you lose £1 of your personal allowance. I'd also add that for people with kids who earn over £50k start to lose child benefit. People on over £100k lose the childcare subsidy - and this isn't clawed back it is just taken away. This all looks crazy when you see marginal rates - especially with the 9% student loan repayments. All of these can mean that people are having marginal tax rates of 60-70% on good but relatively standard salaries like £50-60k (headteacher not hedge funder). The system is a mess because it's just so many little changes over time adding up to something that really makes no sense.
The effect of all of this (often policies introduced by the Tories which is noticeably not helping people on over £100k a year) is that the UK has Northern European average tax on property, VAT, corporations and high earners. But very low takes on social security and income tax on low and middle income earners. So most people on low, moderate or reasonably high earnings (up to £100k) pay less tax on their wages than in basically any other large developed country, except for the US. People earning over £100k, businesses - and our property and sales tax - are at European levels. That's why Reeves pledge to not raise taxes on working people is such a challenge is because it removes two thirds of the revenue base - but also it removes the bit of the revenue base that is most undertaxed, instead focusing any new tax rises on the bit that is arguably overtaxed (or at least taxed at a significantly higher level).
And this is why I'd be a dreadful politician because I'd basically be saying we need to increase taxes for most people and have fiscal drag by freezing the personal allowance until it's back to about 25% of average earning
Basically aiming for all of our tax income to be at the lower end of the Northern Europe average rather than two thirds of the tax base being American and one third being Belgian. But I also think people should pay tax - I believe in a universal welfare state, I think that means a broad tax base where everyone pays in and everyone takes out. But even absent that I think there's a really strong case for comprehensive tax reform (as with welfare) but it requires thought, planning, rolling the pitch and then doing and it can't just be driven by the need to find £X billion because you've outsourced your decision making to the OBR.
On Israel - it's not true. So the UK has I would say rather tepidly criticised Israel. That poster can make the argument that the UK suspended arms sales, but that's not the government's position. David Lammy suspended about 30 licenses but said in the Commons that it was "not a blanket ban or an arms embargo [...] the point of the process is in no way to punish Israel but to make sure that our export licensing regime remains among the most robust in the world." We are also still exporting arms where we're part of a global supply chain, like the F35. I'd add that RAF spy planes have flown over 500 missions from Cyprus over Israel in support of Israel's wars and that whenever Iran has been flinging missiles at Israel, the RAF (supporting the USAF) have been flying sorties over Israel to shoot those missiles down. I agree the government's not in the pocket but it's position is uncomfortable and ambiguous and quite possibly defensible. Though personally in characterising it, I'd argue spy planes and RAF sorties and F35s matter more than statements or the £45 million bilateral UK-Israel arms exports.
Winter fuel allowance, for example, the "means test" the government adopted was whether or not pensioners received Pension Credit which is a benefit for low income pensioners. Practically that means people with a pension income (state and private combined) of less than £12,000 per year (single pensioners) or £18,000 per year (couples) - and for context someone who receives ONLY their state pension will get £11,973 per year. They didn't means test to exclude a few rich people. WFA used to be a universal benefit and they removed it from 90% of the elderly. I think the issue with it - as with the benefits cuts - is that it wasn't about "reform" which requires thought, laying the groundwork, building the argument and then a set of changes. It was driven by the Treasury needing to find x billion of cuts so the OBR could make their sums add up - combined with the Treasury's institutional hatred of universal benefits (which is why they've suggested the same policy to Gordon Brown in 1997 and George Osborne in 2010, they were just politically smart enough to say the policy upside of £1.5 billion is not worth the political pain of taking money away from 10 million pensioners). There were pensioners who are receiving housing benefit and other benefits who had the WFA taken away. The idea this is "taxing the rich" is bullshit.
On the farmer's land point there is a huge discrepancy between the Treasury and DEFRA's statistics. I think it's basically because they're looking at different things so the Treasury are looking at claims within inheritance tax last year, while DEFRA are looking at farm size and value. There's no doubt that it's an inheitance tax loophole (see Jeremy Clarkson) - but the Treasury estimate that basically on 25% of farms will be impacted, DEFRA's estimate is that it's about two thirds. I think whether it's 25% or two thirds will have a big impact on how "fair" it is perceived to be and, indeed, whether it's only affecting a few rich people.
On tax more broadly - this is where I think people see Tory and think Republican but what they did is very different and why I'd be a dreadful politiician
So the Tories left (and we still have) tax at its highest share of GDP since the war (because we're not America and low growth since 2005-8, plus the crash, then covid and energy price cap has had a big impact on our debt position). But on a very narrow base - a large part of that is because the Tories big tax reform over the last 14 years was steadily increasing the personal allowance - so it went from around 25% of average earnings all the way through the 90s and 2000s to peaking at 45% of average earnings in 2019-20. They didn't focus on tax cuts for the rich but massively narrowing the tax base (or as they put it "removing the lowest earning from tax").
To that Redditer's post - people earning over £100k a year get their personal allowance clawed back by HMRC, so every £2 you earn over £100k you lose £1 of your personal allowance. I'd also add that for people with kids who earn over £50k start to lose child benefit. People on over £100k lose the childcare subsidy - and this isn't clawed back it is just taken away. This all looks crazy when you see marginal rates - especially with the 9% student loan repayments. All of these can mean that people are having marginal tax rates of 60-70% on good but relatively standard salaries like £50-60k (headteacher not hedge funder). The system is a mess because it's just so many little changes over time adding up to something that really makes no sense.
The effect of all of this (often policies introduced by the Tories which is noticeably not helping people on over £100k a year) is that the UK has Northern European average tax on property, VAT, corporations and high earners. But very low takes on social security and income tax on low and middle income earners. So most people on low, moderate or reasonably high earnings (up to £100k) pay less tax on their wages than in basically any other large developed country, except for the US. People earning over £100k, businesses - and our property and sales tax - are at European levels. That's why Reeves pledge to not raise taxes on working people is such a challenge is because it removes two thirds of the revenue base - but also it removes the bit of the revenue base that is most undertaxed, instead focusing any new tax rises on the bit that is arguably overtaxed (or at least taxed at a significantly higher level).
And this is why I'd be a dreadful politician because I'd basically be saying we need to increase taxes for most people and have fiscal drag by freezing the personal allowance until it's back to about 25% of average earning
Basically aiming for all of our tax income to be at the lower end of the Northern Europe average rather than two thirds of the tax base being American and one third being Belgian. But I also think people should pay tax - I believe in a universal welfare state, I think that means a broad tax base where everyone pays in and everyone takes out. But even absent that I think there's a really strong case for comprehensive tax reform (as with welfare) but it requires thought, planning, rolling the pitch and then doing and it can't just be driven by the need to find £X billion because you've outsourced your decision making to the OBR.On Israel - it's not true. So the UK has I would say rather tepidly criticised Israel. That poster can make the argument that the UK suspended arms sales, but that's not the government's position. David Lammy suspended about 30 licenses but said in the Commons that it was "not a blanket ban or an arms embargo [...] the point of the process is in no way to punish Israel but to make sure that our export licensing regime remains among the most robust in the world." We are also still exporting arms where we're part of a global supply chain, like the F35. I'd add that RAF spy planes have flown over 500 missions from Cyprus over Israel in support of Israel's wars and that whenever Iran has been flinging missiles at Israel, the RAF (supporting the USAF) have been flying sorties over Israel to shoot those missiles down. I agree the government's not in the pocket but it's position is uncomfortable and ambiguous and quite possibly defensible. Though personally in characterising it, I'd argue spy planes and RAF sorties and F35s matter more than statements or the £45 million bilateral UK-Israel arms exports.
#8
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by crazy canuck - July 04, 2025, 03:40:24 PMNot an unjustified fear - who knows what the US will do under this President.
#9
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Tamas - July 04, 2025, 03:21:35 PMThis a random reddit post in a thread about the new corbyn party, I kinda agree with it:
QuoteSometimes I worry that on the left we assume consensus on our positions rather than ensure it.
Do we know that left wing positions aren't being put in place because a few rich people disagree, or actually is it just that they're not as popular as we think? Taxing the rich sounds good in theory but when we knuckle down and try and means test winter fuel allowance, tax farmers land, or increase taxes on people earning 100,000 suddenly those people aren't the rich were talking about.
Same with Israel - is it true that the government is in the pocket of Israel? Our government openly criticize them, have suspended arms sales, coordinated with allies to pressure Israel - maybe you think it's not far enough, but these aren't things Israel want us to do. Maybe it's actually that people aren't as radical about Palestine as the protests and social media posts suggest - they likely want an end to the war, but not the destruction or dismantling of Israel or for us to completely cut ties with them.
#10
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Sheilbh - July 04, 2025, 03:20:29 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 04, 2025, 02:50:34 PMThough - apparently the stated rationale is that China fears if Russia loses, then the US will shift its entire focus towards conflict with China.Yeah - I think it's sourced from SCMP, which is a great paper. And this is the story - but it's not quite how that comment appears:
Which, to me, sounds like a good reason for China to step up support for Iran and other opponents of Israel given the direction the US is moving currently.
QuoteExclusive | China tells EU it does not want to see Russia lose its war in Ukraine: sources
Wang Yi speaks of concern that US could shift whole focus in China's direction in talks with top EU diplomat Beijing
Published: 1:53am, 4 Jul 2025
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union's top diplomat on Wednesday that Beijing does not want to see a Russian loss in Ukraine because it fears the United States would then shift its whole focus to Beijing, according to several people familiar with the exchange.
The comment, to the EU's Kaja Kallas, would confirm what many in Brussels believe to be Beijing's position but jar with China's public utterances. The foreign minstry regularly says China is "not a party" to the war. Some EU officials involved were surprised by the frankness of Wang's remarks.
Wang is said to have rejected, however, the accusation that China was materially supporting Russia's war effort, financially or militarily, insisting that if it was doing so, the conflict would have ended long ago.
During a marathon four-hour debate on a wide range of geopolitical and commercial grievances, Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc's de facto foreign affairs chief – several "history lessons and lectures".
Some EU officials felt he was giving her a lesson in realpolitik, part of which focused on Beijing's belief that Washington will soon turn its full attention eastward, two officials said.
The wider talks - ahead of the big EU trip to China in a few weeks (I think to mark the 50th anniversary of formal EU-Chinese relations) - seem more standard. Slightly tougher statement from Kallas than VdL or Costa, but EU raising their "long-standing concerns, including economic and trade imbalances and China's responsibility to contribute to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine" but both sides should work together to strengthen the "international rules-based order and the multilateral system", on climate change, agreed on nuclear non-proliferation and welcomed de-escalation in the Middle East.
Broadly similar from China but emphasising that, in Wang's statement, China views Europe as "an important pole in a multipolar world" and that China "always supports Europe in promoting integration and is happy to see the EU strengthen its strategic autonomy and play a greater role on the international stage" - and called out "unliateralism and bullying".