4 ms·

Is that really the only choice? The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. Part of the reason for that is a long period of generally pro-business, ec

Is that really the only choice? The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. Part of the reason for that is a long period of generally pro-business, economically conservative government. That's good in many ways, because in a modern economy, business and investment is needed to drive improvements in individual living standards. But doing that relies on a sensible long-term strategy that can be used to achieve social goals. There is no point in cutting healthcare spending for preventative services, for example, if those cuts result in higher long-term costs. Cutting spending on disability benefits doesn't magically save money – it just transfers the cost of disability support to charities and carers, while in many cases destroying the lives of people who have worked and contributed for many years. The thing is, when you say "a little belt tightening", this actually means that people in the UK with the lowest incomes start to suffer and in some cases die. I struggle to believe that it is good long-term economic policy to have a large share of the population struggling to afford basic essentials, while the richest demographics continue to increase their wealth. In the most recent UK budget, I received a large tax cut despite being a relatively high earner. Indeed, UK policy seems to be continuing to shift in that direction, and the only possible reason I can see for that is a deliberate, ideological attempt to enact a policy of minimal public spending. The UK has many economic and structural problems which could be dealt with, but it's hard to see how continuing to redistribute wealth to the richest parts of the country is going to do that. And of course we now have an entire government that will be paralysed by the economic and political aspects of Brexit for the next decade, so I guess there's no immediate chance of salvation.

raesene9 8y ago
it's a real shame that the concept of raising certain taxes in the UK (specifically income tax and corporation tax) has become an anathema to british politicians. We still need to get the money from somewhere, so instead of fairly increasing progressive taxes, we get lots of little (often unfair) hidden tax rises and huge cuts in public spending. The weird part is, the british public go along with this. The Conservatives are actively talking about more corporation tax cuts at a time where we still have a large defecit and huge problems with underspending in the public sector.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > The weird part is, the British public go along with this. I don't think they're 'going along with it' - you're making it sound like they don't know what they want. UK society doesn't have much of an anti-government movement like in the US, but low taxation and leaner governance is a pretty common, mainstream preference here. I think if you speak to a diverse group of voters in the UK you will find a lot of support for austerity and low taxation. It's not even a Conservative thing! See my sibling comment for an example. The NHS is a strong outlier in people's preference for extra funding. Child education is another. But for social security? I think the appetite in the UK is less than you think it is.
  - raesene9 8y ago
    Well I'd argue they don't know what they want really, in that they want two divergent things, "better public services" and "low taxation" Personally I didn't mention Social security, I know the attitude to people claiming benefits from those not on them in the UK I was thinking of the problems in local gov. spending where the central grant has radically decreased, the problems in police spending with far fewer front line officers, the problem in the courts system which is having major impacts there. The bit about "going along with it" was primarily about the corporation tax cuts. Those cut revenue and don't directly help citizens (unless you believe in trickle down economics!). A more rational approach would be to want lower personal taxes surely?
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > in that they want two divergent things, "better public services" and "low taxation" They think this can be achieved be being more efficient (all the newspaper articles about NHS wastage and middle managers), and spending less money on things they don't want (overseas aid is a common example.) So the two things aren't necessarily at odds. > unless you believe in trickle down economics! I think a lot of people do. > A more rational approach would be to want lower personal taxes surely? I think a lot of British people see a large successful business as a virtuous success story, and so want them 'punished' less with less taxes. (I'm not saying any of this is my opinion, but it's definitely what a lot of people here think.)
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"There is no point in cutting healthcare spending for preventative services, for example, if those cuts result in higher long-term costs. " By that logic the government should simply increase spending 10x on disability and everything will be great! Everything has an ROI, everything has an efficiency. Canada and Germany both went through massive austerity in the 1990's to re-tool their economies from massive debt overhang - and it worked. Both Canada and Germany emerged on reasonable footing. I think arguments should be less about spending and more about efficiencies.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  By that logic the government should simply increase spending 10x on disability and everything will be great! No, you've made a logical leap that isn't warranted. There is nothing wrong with running a balanced and cautious budget, and I didn't say there was. But cutting spending on a service unnecessarily, when doing so raises the total long-term spending on that service is categorically inefficient. It's a classic example of short-termism – government ends up simultaneously forking over more money, and achieving less! Everything has an ROI, everything has an efficiency. Yes, I agree. That's why UK government austerity should focus less on inefficient spending cuts to essential services, and more on restructuring the economy.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  I don't see how your quote relates to the second para, can you explain? Increased spending on disability won't reduce future spending; whilst selling off children's playground, say, is likely to be detrimental later.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Increased spending on disability (eg, on providing adapted cars or lower cost transport to disabled people) reduces future spending because it gets disabled people back into work and work is generally protective of health.
- jashmatthews 8y ago
  > Germany both went through massive austerity in the 1990's to re-tool their economies from massive debt overhang - and it worked. AFAIK, for Germany that was mostly consequences of reunification. Economic growth slowed in the early 2000s and the centre left instituted the Harz benefit reforms etc. They certainly didn't pay down goverment debt in the 1990s: https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp
gaius 8y ago
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. Yes but you are neglecting to mention the other side of this coin: also one of the most expensive countries in the world. Look at purchasing power parity and the UK doesn’t seem rich at all, it’s all on paper only. Housing, fuel, transportation etc are all disproportionately expensive here.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Okay, sure – if you rank by per-capita PPP then the UK slides down the chart further than you might expect. That doesn't in any way make it a poor country or change the point at all.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Well, it sort of does: any services the government delivers will be delivered by people being paid UK wages using goods and services paid for at UK prices. We look rich from the outside because we (still) have a strong currency but from the inside the UK is not especially wealthy because you don’t get much for your money here.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  The problem is it is massively divided, a house that costs £100,000 in Wales might cost £500,000 in Oxford or £750,000 in London. Politicians on both sides keep banging on about mobility but the real problem is inequality.
sys_64738 8y ago
> The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. There are two parts to England: London and not London. All the money is centered in the capital and the rest of the country is neglected. House prices in London are driven up to insane levels due to the money laundering through real estate transactions for empty housing. The majority of the working class people in England live in poverty.
- repolfx 8y ago
  That's a fascinating definition of poverty. It's certainly not an internationally recognised one. Have you ever been to England? People in Birmingham or Manchester are certainly not living in poverty by any reasonable definition of the term.
  - sys_64738 8y ago
    You try telling that to all those people on zero hours contracts who can even make a living wage. England is inherently working class and they are poor, most living pay cheque to pay cheque.

raesene9 8y ago

it's a real shame that the concept of raising certain taxes in the UK (specifically income tax and corporation tax) has become an anathema to british politicians. We still need to get the money from somewhere, so instead of fairly increasing progressive taxes, we get lots of little (often unfair) hidden tax rises and huge cuts in public spending. The weird part is, the british public go along with this. The Conservatives are actively talking about more corporation tax cuts at a time where we still have a large defecit and huge problems with underspending in the public sector.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> The weird part is, the British public go along with this. I don't think they're 'going along with it' - you're making it sound like they don't know what they want. UK society doesn't have much of an anti-government movement like in the US, but low taxation and leaner governance is a pretty common, mainstream preference here. I think if you speak to a diverse group of voters in the UK you will find a lot of support for austerity and low taxation. It's not even a Conservative thing! See my sibling comment for an example. The NHS is a strong outlier in people's preference for extra funding. Child education is another. But for social security? I think the appetite in the UK is less than you think it is.
- raesene9 8y ago
  Well I'd argue they don't know what they want really, in that they want two divergent things, "better public services" and "low taxation" Personally I didn't mention Social security, I know the attitude to people claiming benefits from those not on them in the UK I was thinking of the problems in local gov. spending where the central grant has radically decreased, the problems in police spending with far fewer front line officers, the problem in the courts system which is having major impacts there. The bit about "going along with it" was primarily about the corporation tax cuts. Those cut revenue and don't directly help citizens (unless you believe in trickle down economics!). A more rational approach would be to want lower personal taxes surely?
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > in that they want two divergent things, "better public services" and "low taxation" They think this can be achieved be being more efficient (all the newspaper articles about NHS wastage and middle managers), and spending less money on things they don't want (overseas aid is a common example.) So the two things aren't necessarily at odds. > unless you believe in trickle down economics! I think a lot of people do. > A more rational approach would be to want lower personal taxes surely? I think a lot of British people see a large successful business as a virtuous success story, and so want them 'punished' less with less taxes. (I'm not saying any of this is my opinion, but it's definitely what a lot of people here think.)

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"There is no point in cutting healthcare spending for preventative services, for example, if those cuts result in higher long-term costs. " By that logic the government should simply increase spending 10x on disability and everything will be great! Everything has an ROI, everything has an efficiency. Canada and Germany both went through massive austerity in the 1990's to re-tool their economies from massive debt overhang - and it worked. Both Canada and Germany emerged on reasonable footing. I think arguments should be less about spending and more about efficiencies.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
By that logic the government should simply increase spending 10x on disability and everything will be great! No, you've made a logical leap that isn't warranted. There is nothing wrong with running a balanced and cautious budget, and I didn't say there was. But cutting spending on a service unnecessarily, when doing so raises the total long-term spending on that service is categorically inefficient. It's a classic example of short-termism – government ends up simultaneously forking over more money, and achieving less! Everything has an ROI, everything has an efficiency. Yes, I agree. That's why UK government austerity should focus less on inefficient spending cuts to essential services, and more on restructuring the economy.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
I don't see how your quote relates to the second para, can you explain? Increased spending on disability won't reduce future spending; whilst selling off children's playground, say, is likely to be detrimental later.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Increased spending on disability (eg, on providing adapted cars or lower cost transport to disabled people) reduces future spending because it gets disabled people back into work and work is generally protective of health.
jashmatthews 8y ago
> Germany both went through massive austerity in the 1990's to re-tool their economies from massive debt overhang - and it worked. AFAIK, for Germany that was mostly consequences of reunification. Economic growth slowed in the early 2000s and the centre left instituted the Harz benefit reforms etc. They certainly didn't pay down goverment debt in the 1990s: https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp

gaius 8y ago

The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. Yes but you are neglecting to mention the other side of this coin: also one of the most expensive countries in the world. Look at purchasing power parity and the UK doesn’t seem rich at all, it’s all on paper only. Housing, fuel, transportation etc are all disproportionately expensive here.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
Okay, sure – if you rank by per-capita PPP then the UK slides down the chart further than you might expect. That doesn't in any way make it a poor country or change the point at all.
- gaius 8y ago
  Well, it sort of does: any services the government delivers will be delivered by people being paid UK wages using goods and services paid for at UK prices. We look rich from the outside because we (still) have a strong currency but from the inside the UK is not especially wealthy because you don’t get much for your money here.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
The problem is it is massively divided, a house that costs £100,000 in Wales might cost £500,000 in Oxford or £750,000 in London. Politicians on both sides keep banging on about mobility but the real problem is inequality.

sys_64738 8y ago

> The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. There are two parts to England: London and not London. All the money is centered in the capital and the rest of the country is neglected. House prices in London are driven up to insane levels due to the money laundering through real estate transactions for empty housing. The majority of the working class people in England live in poverty.

repolfx 8y ago
That's a fascinating definition of poverty. It's certainly not an internationally recognised one. Have you ever been to England? People in Birmingham or Manchester are certainly not living in poverty by any reasonable definition of the term.
- sys_64738 8y ago
  You try telling that to all those people on zero hours contracts who can even make a living wage. England is inherently working class and they are poor, most living pay cheque to pay cheque.