Looking Back On 14 Years Of Austerity - For What?

After reading lots of posts I am sad it’s come to this in the U.K. So many posts are totally true but feel very lucky not to have major health issues at present only osteoarthritis in my knees and same for my husband We try hard to spend manage carefully on our pensions we have and enjoy life to the full helping out our children and grandchildren where and when we can whilst we are here on this planet
Sadly not so many are lucky like we are
I hate reading about the lazy entitled people of today so many don’t want to work or contribute to U.K. taxes just complain and try to find ways to claim etc etc So many are having children they can’t afford to support and ask for help from any source they can Food Banks council housing social housing You can’t have children if you can’t afford to look after them but that’s not the case these days is it Soneine tell me I have it wrong I live in a flat paid for by our hard work we don’t owe anyone anything but now they have built many blocks of flats in our town all for social housing and so many are trashed and uncared for inside and out They have so many on the housing lists they have to try and house families but high rise flats are not the answer !!! Houses with gardens for families who will care about these places that the council provide All to sad as I said at the beginning??? Any thoughts anyone !!!

Austerity was based on very badly analysed research. Try Hannah Fry, The Devils in the Detail e10. It's a BBC podcast which is quite shocking and shows that politicians didn't have the in-depth knowledge to critique the research that they used as evidence for a policy which has destroyed lives. It's seriously worth listening to on BBC sounds, I find it very upsetting that there is NO good evidence that austerity actually works, it's based on data which was deeply flawed and not properly analysed.

The trouble with the NHS is now too many chiefs and not enough qualified staff. My daughter is a radiographer and is constantly working too many hours not all of which she gets paid for other than time off in lieu. Which she then struggles to take off, after 4 years at university and 5 years on the front line she looking to leave and do something else. I will support her decision all the way as I can see she’s burnt out

Think you will find that all parties are to blame for the decline n the NHS not just the Tories. It has been mismanaged for decades.

Mt thoughts, mums the word, is that you have a distorted, negative view of our country. We have far more good citizens than those who, for a variety of reasons have a ‘sense of entitlement’. I include tax dodgers in that group

Jess20

Austerity was based on very badly analysed research. Try Hannah Fry, The Devils in the Detail e10. It's a BBC podcast which is quite shocking and shows that politicians didn't have the in-depth knowledge to critique the research that they used as evidence for a policy which has destroyed lives. It's seriously worth listening to on BBC sounds, I find it very upsetting that there is NO good evidence that austerity actually works, it's based on data which was deeply flawed and not properly analysed.

Thanks for that, Jess20

I have known about the Reinhart & Rogoff error for some time and what I find breathtaking is the fact that they refuse to acknowledge that their error is a major one. Missing 5 countries off their calculations and using a complete outlier to pull the averages down seems pretty major to me.

I'm going to contribute another link from BBC sounds that people should find interesting. Economist Mariana Mazzucato interviewed by Nick Robinson. Her particular field is that of state investment. (Warning, she talks very fast😆 )

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001wr1r

Pammond

Think you will find that all parties are to blame for the decline n the NHS not just the Tories. It has been mismanaged for decades.

I think you will find that on most metrics your statement that all parties are to blame is incorrect. Compare the state of the NHS 2010 with the state of it 14 years later.

Doodledog

flappergirl

The Tories have ensured that the generation coming through will have no teeth by the time they are 40, no homes to call their own, soul destroying zero contract jobs and terrifying hospital waiting lists.

They will have no free movement in Europe and should they wish to start a small business trading with Europe they will suffer extra costs and red tape which will negate the whole point. The Tories have not been caretakers of the country's future on any level.

This is in contrast to the inherited wealth and privilege (George Osborne, Jacob Rees Mogg, David Cameron for example) that many of them enjoy, safe in the knowledge that their children and grandchildren will live life with impunity at the very top of society.

They should hang their heads in shame.

Excellent post.

Not a lot to be said for "Etonomics"

Milest0ne

Doodledog

flappergirl

The Tories have ensured that the generation coming through will have no teeth by the time they are 40, no homes to call their own, soul destroying zero contract jobs and terrifying hospital waiting lists.

They will have no free movement in Europe and should they wish to start a small business trading with Europe they will suffer extra costs and red tape which will negate the whole point. The Tories have not been caretakers of the country's future on any level.

This is in contrast to the inherited wealth and privilege (George Osborne, Jacob Rees Mogg, David Cameron for example) that many of them enjoy, safe in the knowledge that their children and grandchildren will live life with impunity at the very top of society.

They should hang their heads in shame.

Excellent post.

Not a lot to be said for "Etonomics"

There may not be a lot to be said for Etonomics but most of the posters on here are clinging tightly to the economic theory that inspired it.

Well said Mae13 and FlapperGirl
I don't want a violent revolution but just about every institution and organisation, NHS, Education, politics, the energy companies, the transport system, the post office (have I missed anything?) is broken and needs a complete overhaul, a re-think, rubbing out and starting again.

Agreed

Brilliant comment s , most of our services ie NHS Education Police are subcontracted out to private companies, there doesn’t seem to be any checks and balances, hence the amount of billionaires have increased exponentially, many on taxpayers money, It’s so interesting that it’s the middle and working classes that are being stretched to the limits,

Spot on flappergirl.

Iam64

Mt thoughts, mums the word, is that you have a distorted, negative view of our country. We have far more good citizens than those who, for a variety of reasons have a ‘sense of entitlement’. I include tax dodgers in that group

Indeed Iam64.

the lazy entitled people of today - that is a lazy use of language and of thought.

I spent the bulk of my career as a social worker and I can assure you that for every "lazy entitled person" there are scores struggling to manage in the face of poor health (with poor services to manage this), poor education and absence of support for young parents that would cut into the "cycle of deprivation."

We are a rich country in comparison to most of the world. What we choose to spend those riches on reflects the moral health of the nation. Our government chooses to use those riches to bolster the income of the already rich, whilst watching the NHS, education and social care dwindle.

It is very sad. Sometimes I feel glad that I am on the home straight and will not have to watch the decline much longer.

I know that TV shows such as 'Rich House Poor House' are fake and show very little in a week, but I sometimes wonder whether all of us might benefit from walking in the shoes of others for a while? So people who think the young are entitled could try looking after children on a zero hours contract with top-up benefits and all that that entails, and someone thinking that so-called 'Boomers' are all millionaires with huge houses can see what it's like for someone on a state pension with no other income. I realise that it would be impossible to set up, but I do think that a lot of eyes would be opened. Maybe virtual reality might make something like that possible one day.

Perhaps it would help if people didn't believe that people who don't go out to work and pay income tax are some sort of second class citizen on the scrounge...

Is that your entry for the Passive Aggressive Post Of The Week Award?

Maybe take issue with something specific that a named person has written and say why you don't agree?

MaizieD

Perhaps it would help if people didn't believe that people who don't go out to work and pay income tax are some sort of second class citizen on the scrounge...

If they have not got a genuine reason not to work (physical or mental health problems or a disability) then why shouldn’t people work.

The exception is of course couples where the main breadwinner can afford for the other to stay home and look after the home and children.

The main breadwinner is still only paying his or her own tax bill - nobody can pay for anyone else, and under the current system tax is based on income, not wealth. I know there is purchase tax, but people spend money which has already been taxed, so it is not being paid by someone who was given it in the first place, if that makes sense - it is being recirculated.

Everyone looks after their home and children (if they have them), whether they work or not, and some people don't have children anyway. Why should those who do be exempt from making a financial contribution to society? I don't think that doing so makes anyone 'a second class citizen on the scrounge' (!!), but I don't see why someone who is at home when their children are at school should not contribute in the same way as someone going out to work.

mumstheword86

I absolutely disagree. Having worked in the benefit sector for over 14 years, only retiring late 2022 I absolutely refute your comments. Getting social housing is incredibly hard, just having children no longer qualifies one, as it would back in the 80’s, many many people using foodbanks are actually in work! We’ve statistically been in what the govt calls “full employment” for the last 10 years!

Very few people live a “good” stable life on benefits unless they are cheating the system and many people claiming universal credit are actually in work.

My concern is around those individuals and corporations not paying their taxes, whilst employing people on minimal wages and zero hour contracts meaning they are forced into using food banks and claiming Universal Credit.

Doodledog

The main breadwinner is still only paying his or her own tax bill - nobody can pay for anyone else, and under the current system tax is based on income, not wealth. I know there is purchase tax, but people spend money which has already been taxed, so it is not being paid by someone who was given it in the first place, if that makes sense - it is being recirculated.

Everyone looks after their home and children (if they have them), whether they work or not, and some people don't have children anyway. Why should those who do be exempt from making a financial contribution to society? I don't think that doing so makes anyone 'a second class citizen on the scrounge' (!!), but I don't see why someone who is at home when their children are at school should not contribute in the same way as someone going out to work.

Knowing this is an argument I will not win, I'll answer.

Of course all parents look after their children, whether they work or not.

However, for some families it's better for one person to work excessively long hours pay tax at 45% knowing childcare and all home related tasks are done. The worker likely expects to not "help" with driving long distances to schools, lessons, sports, clubs, or even shopping for food. No time wasted in queues.

Naturally 2 people could be on 20% tax, or 1 on 40% and one below the limit, or an other combination- however, I believe most couples tend to attempt to bring home the amount of money needed for their life style - if one person/taxpayer can accomplish that I've no problem. But why would I?

As a point of interest: why someone who is at home when their children are at school should not contribute in the same way as someone going out to work. How could an amount be determined sahm should contribute? IOW, what imaginary job, what skills - would be used to calculate NI?

It’s not about winning or losing - it’s just different points of view.

To my way of thinking it’s not about percentages of tax, or the amounts earned - that is why we have a graded tax system, and how fair it is is a different question. Basically though, each individual is taxed at a rate deemed fair based on their earnings. It doesn’t matter if they pay in £10 or £10000. But they are not making contributions on behalf of anyone else. Everyone in the UK benefits from living in a country where even today a lot is provided. IMO that means that everyone should pay their share, otherwise they are being subsidised by those who do pay. It is particularly important for a fair society that those who can afford not to work are not being subsidised by those who can’t, which can often be the case when talking about one person’s tax bill covering more than one person.

Norah NI is used to contribute to state pensions and the NHS and some other benefits. (In reality, it all ends up in the same place as other taxes.) If people paid separately for these (as people in some countries do), it would be easy to work out how much everybody would pay. If somebody doesn't contribute to healthcare, they don't get any when they're ill, or if they don't contribute their pension, they don't get one.

Employee NIC does not pay for the NHS*. It is a contribution towards state pension, job seeker’s allowance, contribution-based employment and support allowance, maternity allowance and bereavement payment,

www.gov.uk/national-insurance/what-national-insurance-is-for

but I agree, it is just another tax on earnings the rate of which has been increasing over the years until 2024.

In the early 1970s it was levied at around 5% and then rose to 6.75% by 1979, 9% by the end of the 1989, 10% by the end of the 1999, 11% by 2009, 13.8% by 2019. Last year it was 12% but has been reduced to 10% from January 2024.

Higher earners and younger pensioners will have paid more NIC than lower earners and older pensioners. So long as someone has paid some NIC for 52 weeks in a year in excess of the lower earnings limit they will receive credit towards a state pension.

Employer’s NIC is paid on top of earnings. It’s effectively a tax on jobs currently levied at 13.8%.

* except the OBR says this:

NIC receipts are, unlike most taxes, paid into the National Insurance Fund and are notionally used to pay for the state pension and other contributory benefits, where an individual’s past payment record has some influence on the size of payments they receive. A small amount is notionally directed to the NHS, although this only makes up a small proportion of NHS funding. As such, in some presentations of receipts, NICs are counted as ‘social contributions’ rather than taxes.

obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/national-insurance-contributions-nics/

Ahem! As you posted yourself, " a small amount is notionally directed to the NHS".

The point is the same really. If general taxes are used for the NHS and somebody chooses not to pay them by not working, why should they receive healthcare? They wouldn't if we had a system where health is paid for as a separate insurance.

As you also pointed out, PAYE workers are paying a residual basic rate tax of 20% + 10% NI and are subsidising those who don't work.