That Starmer fella...

Reform the answer, on paper maybe

Ah yes. On paper.

Can I have a crack at this on paper stuff?

1. Remove all taxes and replace with a single 10% flat tax
   
2. 20,000% increase in national spending
   
3. Reduce the deficit
   
4. One free pizza per week for everyone
   
   

1. Sunlit Uplands
   

^ it's what we voted Brexit for.

Also no one in a Starmer thread is seriously talking about stopping anyone becoming "wealthy" - whatever that means.

99.9% of entrepreneurs I've met (and I have actually met quite a few of differing successes) have shared the personality trait of not wanting to be led by others. So for all the common sense chat about entrepreneurs needing a financial incentive, my 2p is those people will always do their thing. The issue is whether they go and do it in the US or Asia instead of here.

My other 2p is that on inheritance, yes, very wealthy people will avoid it. But that's a small % of the population. What you're starting to see, and will suddenly start to be very common is massive windfalls across a large section of the population from people inheriting property. As an eg my OH and siblings were left a tiny share of a will from some distant relative (c.£200) - the main beneficiary was getting something like 800k from a property in Rugby. Although that wasn't quite enough so they tried to alter the will and cut out the adjacent relatives to get the full >£1m.

It's not really the left's problem that this meaning of fiscal prudence exists — there's an entire section of the 'prudence' wiki page that talks about the economic definition, and while it's a little arcane in defining it as the third derivative of a utility function over consumption being above zero (accelerating utility/consumption), ultimately the framing is all about precautionary saving.

They're having to fix the roof while the rain is pouring in, and while the markets are still jittery as fuck about borrowing post Truss. I don't necessarily think Reeves has drawn up her response to these constraints perfectly, but imo it's dishonest to to pretend those constraints don't exist, or pretend it's reasonable for a government to simply ignore them.

I've said on this thread before that we've all seemed to learn the wrong lesson from Truss, just because it's a useful political framing to bash the Tories.

Labour absolutely have options other than market doctrine. The currency markets aren't stupid and very well understand that borrowing for investment, rather than tax cuts, is a positive and disinflationary way to grow an economy. That's not to say that there aren't real constraints, there are, but mostly it's to do with being at full employment, alongside problems with the distribution and type of labour, not debt.

Interest rates are not that high, and are basically at historical average. If the government are not able to invest at average historical interest rates then we've got much larger problems.

99.9% of entrepreneurs I've met (and I have actually met quite a few of differing successes) have shared the personality trait of not wanting to be led by others. So for all the common sense chat about entrepreneurs needing a financial incentive, my 2p is those people will always do their thing.

100% agree with you there. And more broadly I think a movement toward co-operatives and self-management would likely see the positive traits typically applied to 'wealth creators' expand to more people too.

Universalism is good – big fan. This demographic are however, already, by almost every metric, "comfortable".

I don't quite grasp some on the left are being precious about reforming aspects of the"universal credit" system Labour inherited from the Tories. It's a strategic and political mess that needs urgent reform. If the WFP scheme was announced post 2019 more in current memory and closer to recent discource about the generational wealth gaps ... there would be a very different conversation happening.

Burning out the Tories welfare policy legacy should have been one Labour's first 100 day commitments. Save a bunch of cash on wasteful, mean policies and in it's place rebuild as a progressive and fair benefit and welfare system.

Politically speaking, in the current UC context, WFP postures more like a grant scheme (think furlough support scheme) that makes much more sense to shadow / complement an already qualified benefit (pension credits). I'm not sure there are convincing arguments why any grant scheme, for this particular demographic, shouldn't be qualified.

I dont think you can argue that the current scheme is fit for purpose. The Pension Credit niche is 1.4m pensioners, so I'd go further and say that DWP / HMRC should working proactively, in a targetted way to ensure any eligible pensioners get what they are eligible for.

Worth reminding yourself this demographic sits atop significant amount of hoarded and inactive capital. The fairest thing to do is surely give them every incentive to spend their own cash.

Just on that last point and the graph I wanted to check my understanding.

Is it saying the people who've lived / earnt money for the longest period of time managed to save more than those who've lived / earnt money for less time?

Amazing how that works isn't it.

edit: also, I know unfair and somewhat innacurate to say it's strictly innactive wealth. But I think the point remains valid.

Labour were elected to restore public services, I don’t think we’re looking at another round of Osborne-style austerity.

That's what the #gtto dimbulbs projected onto them, Labour have been quite honest that they're pursuing neolib policies, including austerity.

Labour have been quite honest that they're pursuing neolib policies, including austerity.

Please provide a link to where Labour been 'quite honest' about pursuing an ideologically motivated shrinking of the state and public services?

Most definitions of austerity I've seen don't mention ideology. It's simply reducing deficit through spending cuts/higher taxation. Which is exactly what they're persuing?

I don't think they're necessarily persuing neoliberal policies, but it is austerity.

The criticism is that this is a choice. Classically, like Osbourne, it's being presented as something that isn't a choice - but it is. As others mentioned above they could choose to borrow. I don't know what motivates Reeves or Starmer, but presumedly some ideology does.

Great British Energy. Nationalising lapsed rail franchises. Investment into public services. Etc.

All solid e.g. of classic neoliberal poli...oh wait!

difficult economic conditions created by government measures to reduce public expenditure.

So...

1. Create difficult economic conditions
   
2. For the purpose of reducing public spending
   
   

...which IMHO sounds like the opposite.

and resolving long running pay disputes with train drivers and "junior" doctors.

Happy for people to call them pussies and calls for Reeves to sack-up instead of maintaining treasury orthodoxy or whatever. But let's not pretend this is Austerity or Neoliberalism.

Most definitions of austerity I've seen don't mention ideology. It's simply reducing deficit through spending cuts/higher taxation.

When I think of austerity, I think of our most recent experience of it: 2010 and David Cameron, a very specific flavour of austerity which disproportionately targeted public services for cutting, and didn't, fiscal drag aside, make any meaningful increases in taxation for the wealthy. That's why it was clearly ideologically right wing, and not simply a politically neutral reduction in deficit through whatever levers were available - it was a deliberate gutting of the welfare state and public services. Whatever Labour are doing, whatever mistakes they're making, it's not that, and imo we need to refer to them as two different things.

Well either way, the "cuts" have been voted through.

The loud parts of the news cycle at the moment makes it clear that Labour are preparing for deeper cuts and tax change ups. I do not trust Reeves and Starmer but do think that they are pragmatically minded enough (in a political as well as economic sense) that they are fine going after accumulated wealth + business coffers as the modus to meet the 20bn + savings that have been earmarked as necessary. I think they are too cynical and self aware to be doing this if they believed it would be politically unpopular.

And yes, I think that the "cuts" to winter fuel payments is in part a raid on accumulated wealth. As well as reducing welfare outlay the upshot is that it also moves to get some currently shored up, lazy money more active in the economy.

Is it a cut or is it a reprioritisation on where money is spent? Aren't they going to be increasing spending over planned which is why they need to raise tax income?

Labour is the party of economic growth so no problems with bountiful future tax revenues.

You've never had it so good.

Whatever it is …

10m pensioners claimed it 2023/24.
1.4m expected to be eligible to claim 2024/25

There are ~11m pensioners in the UK
21m people over 50 in England

Trying to find a UK private wealth share breakdown by age I saw recently, anyone know the one?

10m pensioners claimed it 2023/24.

Over a quarter of which have assets over a million pounds

Feels like it would be better to direct the money at people in energy poverty than based on age

In This day and age it's not hard, I know a couple who have a 2 bed bungalow worth about 800k. They can't downsize any more as they have separate rooms for medical reasons and are not cash rich.
While I agree there is a conversation to have about death duties. I think the winter fuel payment assessment should be based on pension/cash/savings not including a primary domicile, second homes I'm comfortable with.

So they could release 1.5% of equity to cover a decades worth of energy bills?