James Monk
@twoev.bsky.social
Physics, dodge and burn. Wow, this place really is a rip off of twitter - someone's gonna get sued
This is possibly a misunderstanding. What Reeves said is more about the admin burden of filing a return for a small tax liability. Sounds like they are looking to deduct it automatically at source instead of expecting the recipient to file a return, which would actually be sensible
November 28, 2025 at 1:05 AM
This is possibly a misunderstanding. What Reeves said is more about the admin burden of filing a return for a small tax liability. Sounds like they are looking to deduct it automatically at source instead of expecting the recipient to file a return, which would actually be sensible
I think it was @jsphctrl.ft.com who, shortly after 2016, noted something along the lines of “liberals in EM countries complain to each other about how stupid their politicians are, and how easy it is to take advantage of their idiocy.” I think we are basically there now in the UK
November 28, 2025 at 12:34 AM
I think it was @jsphctrl.ft.com who, shortly after 2016, noted something along the lines of “liberals in EM countries complain to each other about how stupid their politicians are, and how easy it is to take advantage of their idiocy.” I think we are basically there now in the UK
The council tax supplement they introduced is quite similar in effect to a wealth tax on the top 1% that lots of people have been calling for. Why didn’t they pitch it as that to fend off the threat from their left flank?
November 28, 2025 at 12:01 AM
The council tax supplement they introduced is quite similar in effect to a wealth tax on the top 1% that lots of people have been calling for. Why didn’t they pitch it as that to fend off the threat from their left flank?
It’s kind of like how anything increasing got described as exponential when what they really meant was sigmoid
November 27, 2025 at 3:31 PM
It’s kind of like how anything increasing got described as exponential when what they really meant was sigmoid
I felt this as well during the Truss “incident.” We’ve had incompetent and malicious PMs before, but the moment we get one that (accidentally) does a bit of harm to mortgage-havers they can’t get rid of the PM quickly enough. Not that I have any sympathy for Truss ofc
November 27, 2025 at 2:24 PM
I felt this as well during the Truss “incident.” We’ve had incompetent and malicious PMs before, but the moment we get one that (accidentally) does a bit of harm to mortgage-havers they can’t get rid of the PM quickly enough. Not that I have any sympathy for Truss ofc
This may even be the best way of doing it. It’s a bit annoying that we can’t be honest about the fact that the Cameron realignment was not sustainable, and the winners from it shouldn’t have been. You’d think the opposition party at the time could call it out, but seemingly they can’t
November 27, 2025 at 9:49 AM
This may even be the best way of doing it. It’s a bit annoying that we can’t be honest about the fact that the Cameron realignment was not sustainable, and the winners from it shouldn’t have been. You’d think the opposition party at the time could call it out, but seemingly they can’t
The 100k thing isn’t really a revenue raising policy at this point - we wouldn’t “avoid” doing it by increasing the headline rate. The reason for it is some sense of fairness or something I think
November 27, 2025 at 12:09 AM
The 100k thing isn’t really a revenue raising policy at this point - we wouldn’t “avoid” doing it by increasing the headline rate. The reason for it is some sense of fairness or something I think
I think for some people the motivation for raising basic rate was that it flattens the tax distribution (i.e. broadens the base) and for other people the motivation is that it is transparent and simple. This new policy may satisfy the first group, but not the second
November 27, 2025 at 12:05 AM
I think for some people the motivation for raising basic rate was that it flattens the tax distribution (i.e. broadens the base) and for other people the motivation is that it is transparent and simple. This new policy may satisfy the first group, but not the second
Usually the higher rate is just the base rate + 20, so if the basic rate goes to 22% then you pay 42% on everything above ~51k. 42/22 is smaller than 40/20, so you’ve flattened the tax curve by doing that
November 27, 2025 at 12:03 AM
Usually the higher rate is just the base rate + 20, so if the basic rate goes to 22% then you pay 42% on everything above ~51k. 42/22 is smaller than 40/20, so you’ve flattened the tax curve by doing that
People were not asking for that. They were saying things like “increase the basic rate to 22%,” the effect of which is to increase the amount paid by median earners relative to high earners. Various outlets (FT, economist) have opined that the tax system became too progressive under Osborne
November 26, 2025 at 11:55 PM
People were not asking for that. They were saying things like “increase the basic rate to 22%,” the effect of which is to increase the amount paid by median earners relative to high earners. Various outlets (FT, economist) have opined that the tax system became too progressive under Osborne
Surely if you raise the basic rate, which is what people were calling for, you flatten the tax distribution - the difference in tax rate between the bottom and top. This weird pension thing has the same effect - it increases the % total tax from people at the bottom more than at the top
November 26, 2025 at 11:44 PM
Surely if you raise the basic rate, which is what people were calling for, you flatten the tax distribution - the difference in tax rate between the bottom and top. This weird pension thing has the same effect - it increases the % total tax from people at the bottom more than at the top
People on this website have been saying they need to broaden the tax base. Well this broadens the tax base, albeit in a sneaky underhand way, but the effect is to flatten the tax curve all the same. I’m not saying it is good, but people have been asking for it
November 26, 2025 at 11:38 PM
People on this website have been saying they need to broaden the tax base. Well this broadens the tax base, albeit in a sneaky underhand way, but the effect is to flatten the tax curve all the same. I’m not saying it is good, but people have been asking for it
Isn’t the trend in Britain for professionals to consume less and save more? Basically the FIRE thing? The incentive structure we’ve built for graduate workers is very much “stack your pension and ISA and check out as soon as you can,” and I think we are seeing it
November 26, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Isn’t the trend in Britain for professionals to consume less and save more? Basically the FIRE thing? The incentive structure we’ve built for graduate workers is very much “stack your pension and ISA and check out as soon as you can,” and I think we are seeing it
Don’t forget the effect of leaded petrol - older people spent their formative years inhaling lead!
November 26, 2025 at 4:48 PM
Don’t forget the effect of leaded petrol - older people spent their formative years inhaling lead!
It’s about 10% of the leeway they just gave themselves in the budget. It would pay for less than half of the fuel duty cut they did, for example. I’m not saying don’t do it, but we shouldn’t imagine it will solve any problems
November 26, 2025 at 3:36 PM
It’s about 10% of the leeway they just gave themselves in the budget. It would pay for less than half of the fuel duty cut they did, for example. I’m not saying don’t do it, but we shouldn’t imagine it will solve any problems
“It’s only a tax rise if it’s from the risé region of France, otherwise it’s just sparkling fiscal drag”
November 26, 2025 at 3:28 PM
“It’s only a tax rise if it’s from the risé region of France, otherwise it’s just sparkling fiscal drag”
I wouldn’t use a cash isa anyway as they are pointless, but it’s the principle of the thing that we continue to humour this bad financial habit of hoarding cash
November 26, 2025 at 2:57 PM
I wouldn’t use a cash isa anyway as they are pointless, but it’s the principle of the thing that we continue to humour this bad financial habit of hoarding cash
It’s arguably backwards: working people need a cash buffer in case they lose their job or get sick and still have to pay housing. Retired people have more financial security and should be taking more risks to invest. Old people sitting on cash doing nothing with it is a massive problem
November 26, 2025 at 2:55 PM
It’s arguably backwards: working people need a cash buffer in case they lose their job or get sick and still have to pay housing. Retired people have more financial security and should be taking more risks to invest. Old people sitting on cash doing nothing with it is a massive problem
The problem is it isn’t a large amount of income for the country. It might raise £2Bn or something like that when total government spending is around £1000Bn. It might be worth doing just on principle, but unless you put a wealth tax on all wealth it’s not going to make a difference
November 26, 2025 at 1:26 PM
The problem is it isn’t a large amount of income for the country. It might raise £2Bn or something like that when total government spending is around £1000Bn. It might be worth doing just on principle, but unless you put a wealth tax on all wealth it’s not going to make a difference
Does it mean the change to salary sacrifice comes in in 2028/29? Just before the next GE!?
November 26, 2025 at 12:09 PM
Does it mean the change to salary sacrifice comes in in 2028/29? Just before the next GE!?
But they still make it! I see it for sale in other countries.
November 26, 2025 at 11:50 AM
But they still make it! I see it for sale in other countries.