If it was up 2 me

Category: Government

  • Pay Increases vs Inflation in 2025: Who Really Benefits?

    Pay Increases vs Inflation in 2025: Who Really Benefits?

    A Critical Look at Government Claims and the Real Economic Impact

    –

    Introduction

    –

    In 2025, the government has asserted that rising pay combined with falling inflation is a win-win for everyone. However, a closer examination reveals a more complicated picture. With average pay rises of 6.6% in the public sector and 4.2% in the private sector, set against an October inflation rate of 3.6%, it is vital to assess whether these increases genuinely benefit workers, and to explore the broader implications for the economy.

    Advertisements

    –

    Pay Rises in 2025: Public vs Private Sector

    –

    The figures for 2025 paint a tale of two economies. Public sector workers have seen average pay increases of 6.6%, while their private sector counterparts have received an average 4.2% rise. At first glance, both groups may appear to be better off – their nominal pay packets have grown compared to the previous year.

    –

    However, these headline numbers do not tell the full story.

    –

    Inflation Context: The October 2025 Rate

    –

    Inflation, the general rise in prices, stood at 3.6% in October 2025. This means that, on average, the cost of goods and services increased by 3.6% over the previous year. For a pay rise to deliver a real-terms increase in living standards, it needs to outpace inflation. Anything less, and workers may find their extra income is simply absorbed by higher prices.

    –

    The Impact of Tax, National Insurance, and Pensions

    –

    Most workers do not receive the full benefit of their pay increases. Standard deductions include income tax (20%), national insurance contributions (8%), and typical pension contributions (5%). Combined, these deductions reduce the headline pay rise by around 33%. In effect, only two-thirds of any pay increase actually reaches workers’ pockets.

    –

    For example, a £1,000 nominal pay rise leaves just £670 after deductions. This significant reduction means that even a pay rise which appears healthy on paper may not be enough to keep pace with rising costs, especially for those in the private sector where increases are already more modest.

    –

    Advertisements

    Public vs Private Sector: Who Gains, Who Loses?

    –

    Once deductions and inflation are taken into account, the real-terms situation becomes clear. Private sector workers, with an average 4.2% pay rise, see their increase reduced to roughly 2.8% after deductions. Since this is lower than the 3.6% inflation rate, their real income has actually fallen – their pay does not stretch as far as it did last year.

    –

    Public sector workers, on the other hand, fare slightly better. Their 6.6% average pay rise, reduced by one third, results in about a 4.4% net increase. After accounting for inflation, public sector workers enjoy a real-terms pay rise of around 0.8%. This is only possible because public sector pay is directly funded by the government, which can make policy decisions to support higher wage settlements.

    –

    The Employer National Insurance Factor

    –

    For private sector employers, pay rises are not just a matter of higher wages. They must also pay employer national insurance contributions on increased salaries, adding further costs. This additional expense can lead employers to restrict pay rises, limit hiring, or even reduce jobs. As a result, the private sector faces a double squeeze: rising costs and limited ability to pass on pay increases that match inflation.

    –

    Economic Consequences: Shrinking Private Sector, Public Sector Pressures

    –

    The uneven distribution of pay rises has wider economic implications. If private sector pay lags behind inflation, workers’ purchasing power drops, which can suppress consumer spending and slow economic growth. Fewer jobs or lower pay in the private sector also mean less tax revenue and higher welfare costs for the government.

    –

    Conversely, sustained above-inflation pay rises in the public sector, funded by the government, raise questions about long-term sustainability. With public finances already under pressure, continued high wage settlements and generous pension commitments could strain budgets, potentially leading to higher taxes or cuts in services elsewhere.

    –

    Summary and Conclusion

    –

    The government’s claim that rising pay and falling inflation benefit everyone does not bear out under scrutiny. In 2025, private sector workers are losing out in real terms, as their take-home pay increases lag behind inflation after deductions. Public sector workers are better protected, but only because government funding has enabled pay rises that outpace inflation – a situation that may not be sustainable in the long run. We cannot keep increasing taxes on the private sector to cover the public sector. You will end up with no workers.

    –

    The knock-on effects include increased pressure on private sector employers and potential job losses, alongside growing fiscal challenges for the public sector. In reality, the benefits of rising pay and falling inflation are unevenly distributed, and both employees and policymakers must recognise the complexity behind the headline figures if they are to make informed decisions about the country’s economic future.

     

    Advertisements

      Leave a comment

    • Rachel Reeves’ Licensing Oversight: Why the Focus Needs to Shift to Bigger Issues

      Rachel Reeves’ Licensing Oversight: Why the Focus Needs to Shift to Bigger Issues

      Advertisements

      Examining the Real Challenges Facing Britain Beyond Political Point-Scoring

      –

      Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, has found herself under scrutiny in recent days for failing to obtain a selective licence while letting out her house during her stay at Number 11. This incident, though perhaps an administrative oversight by her letting agent, has sparked a media and political storm. It is worth considering both the significance of her mistake and whether the attention it receives is proportionate, especially when set against the backdrop of the more pressing problems facing the country.

      –

      Rachel Reeves’ Licensing Oversight

      –

      The law requires landlords to obtain the appropriate selective licences when letting out property in certain areas. Rachel Reeves’ failure to comply with this regulation, regardless of whether it was her agent’s fault, constitutes a breach for which she should be held accountable. Just as an individual cannot plead ignorance if they fail to pay their TV licence, politicians are not above the law and must face the same penalties as ordinary citizens. If a fine is due, it should be paid, and the matter put to rest.

      –

      However, critics have seized on this issue, making political hay rather than focusing on Reeves’ performance in her official capacity. Questions about whether she has paid the correct tax, stamp duty, or council tax are fair, but the intensity of the reaction from opposing parties raises the question of priorities. Is this truly the best use of Parliament’s time and energy?

      –

      Advertisements

      Political Distraction: Missing the Bigger Picture

      –

      The spectacle of politicians pouncing on minor infractions detracts from the serious issues that affect everyday Britons. Instead of fixating on individual mistakes, the opposition—and indeed all parties—should turn their attention to the broader challenges that impact quality of life across the country. Let us explore some of these pressing problems in detail.

      –

      1. Boat Crossings: Weather as the Only Deterrent

      –

      Illegal boat crossings across the Channel remain a contentious issue. So far this year, the most effective deterrent to these crossings appears to have been unfavourable weather conditions rather than government policy. This highlights a critical failure to introduce robust, humane, and effective measures to address the root causes of migration and manage the UK’s borders. Without a comprehensive strategy, the government risks ceding control to circumstance rather than policy, leaving both migrants and local communities in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

      –

      2. The “Two In, One Out” Policy: A Questionable Approach

      –

      The government’s “one in, one out” policy is not a solution to the countries problems as previously highlighted. It didn’t take a rocket scientist (I am not a Rocket Scientist) to predict that it was only a matter of time that those being deported would return on a Small Boat.

      –

      3. Next Month’s Budget: Redefining the Working Class

      –

      With the upcoming Budget, there is growing concern over the government’s definition of “working people,” now apparently set at those earning under £48,000 per year. This threshold risks excluding many who work overtime, hold multiple jobs, or strive to provide for their families. By narrowing the definition, the government could alienate middle-income earners who feel the squeeze of rising costs but do not qualify for targeted support. A more nuanced understanding of economic hardship is needed to ensure that policies address the realities of modern working life.

      –

      4. Mounting Benefit Bills

      –

      Britain’s welfare system is under immense strain, with benefit bills continuing to rise. This trend reflects both an increase in the cost of living and the persistent challenges faced by vulnerable populations. The debate surrounding benefits often devolves into arguments about dependency, but the underlying issues—such as low pay, insecure employment, and high housing costs—require thoughtful solutions. Reform efforts must focus on creating pathways out of poverty rather than simply cutting costs.

      –

      5. Mounting Unemployment and Hidden Figures

      –

      Official unemployment figures may not tell the whole story. There is growing suspicion that some individuals are counted as disabled rather than unemployed, masking the true scale of joblessness. In addition, the cost of Employers’ National Insurance (NI) is viewed by many as a deterrent to hiring, particularly within small businesses. For the working class, these factors combine to make stable employment harder to secure and sustain, undermining economic recovery and social cohesion.

      –

      6. NHS Waiting Times and Systemic Strain

      –

      The National Health Service (NHS) is facing unprecedented pressures, with waiting times at Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments reaching unacceptable levels. Personal experiences reveal that while frontline staff remain dedicated and compassionate, there are glaring issues with system coordination and management. As winter approaches, the situation is likely to deteriorate further, placing patients at risk and staff under unbearable strain. Addressing these challenges requires investment, innovation, and a willingness to rethink how healthcare is delivered.

      Advertisements

      +

      Conclusion: Refocus on What Matters

      –

      Rachel Reeves’ licensing oversight deserves to be addressed in accordance with the law, but it is not a matter that warrants days of political grandstanding. The real work of opposition—and indeed government—should be to tackle the substantive issues that affect millions of Britons every day. From border security and regulatory reform to the cost of living, unemployment, and the future of the NHS, these are the challenges that demand our leaders’ attention. Only by focusing on what truly matters can politics begin to serve the people, rather than itself.

    • The Labour Government’s BRIT Card Proposal:Tackle immigration or Government Oversight

      The Labour Government’s BRIT Card Proposal:Tackle immigration or Government Oversight

      Labour’s proposed ‘BRIT Card’ aims to establish a mandatory digital ID for UK workers to combat illegal employment and immigration. However, concerns about costs, privacy, and effectiveness undermine public trust. Alternatives, such as enhancing the national insurance system and targeted enforcement, may offer more efficient solutions without significant disruption or expense.-

      –

      -Analysing the Merits, Risks, and Alternatives to Mandatory Digital ID Cards

      –

      Introduction: Labour’s BRIT Card and Its Stated Aims

      –

      Recently, Labour leader Keir Starmer announced plans for a mandatory ‘BRIT Card’ identity card, intended to curb illegal working and deter illegal immigration. This digital ID would become a prerequisite for lawful employment in the UK, forming the centrepiece of Labour’s efforts to demonstrate robust control over the labour market and immigration system.

      –

      While the government suggests that the proposal seeks to address long-standing concerns over illegal employment, the public are not convinced.

      –

      Furthermore, there is significant questions regarding cost, effectiveness, privacy, and the necessity of a new ID system and what is  the true purpose.

      –

      Current Identification Landscape in the UK

      –

      At present, individuals in the UK can prove their identity and right to work using a variety of documents: passports, driving licences, biometric residence permits, and national insurance numbers. While most UK adults possess at least one of these forms of ID, a small yet notable minority—often the most vulnerable—do not.

      –

      The government’s rationale for a universal digital ID is that it would eliminate ambiguity and standardise right-to-work checks. However, this overlooks the utility of existing IDs for the vast majority and the administrative burden on those without any such documentation.

      –

      Passports and driving licences already function as widely accepted photo IDs, but they come with their own barriers: the cost of obtaining or renewing them can be prohibitive for low-income individuals, and not everyone drives or travels abroad. National insurance numbers, meanwhile, are essential for employment but currently lack a photo or biometric component, which limits their utility as a standalone proof of identity.

      –

      Financial and Administrative Costs

      –

      Implementing a new, mandatory identity system is no trivial expense. Previous government estimates for similar schemes, such as the scrapped ID card project of the 2000s, ran into billions of pounds. Even with advances in digital technology, initial outlays for infrastructure, IT systems, and public outreach would be substantial. Ongoing maintenance, cybersecurity, and support for those struggling with digital access would further increase costs. It is likely that the taxpayer would bear the brunt of these expenses, raising questions about value for money in a period of fiscal restraint.

      –

      There are also indirect costs to consider: employers would need to update recruitment processes, train staff, and potentially invest in new verification technology. For individuals, especially those unfamiliar with digital systems, navigating registration could prove daunting.

      –

      Advertisements

      Implementation and Effectiveness: Will the BRIT Card Work?

      –

      The effectiveness of the BRIT Card hinges on comprehensive registration and consistent enforcement. Everyone of working age—citizens and migrants alike—would need to register, provide biometric data, and keep their details up to date. Yet, experience with government digital projects suggests that achieving universal compliance is highly challenging. Those liable to work illegally may simply avoid the system or find ways to circumvent it, such as using forged documents or working in the informal economy.

      –

      Moreover, determined employers who currently flout right-to-work checks may be equally adept at sidestepping a new ID regime. The deterrent effect, therefore, risks being limited unless accompanied by a step-change in enforcement resources and penalties.

      –

      Privacy, Digital Exclusion, and Data Security Concerns

      Centralising sensitive personal data in a single digital ID system raises profound privacy risks. The more data collected—biometric, personal, employment—the greater the consequences if that data is breached. Past incidents, both in the UK and abroad, demonstrate that no system is immune to hacking or accidental leaks.

      –

      Digital exclusion is another pressing issue. Significant numbers of people—especially older adults, those with disabilities, or individuals lacking internet access—could struggle to register or maintain their digital ID. Ensuring equitable access would require costly support services and alternative registration methods, potentially undermining the efficiency arguments for a digital-first approach.

      –

      Finally, there is the risk of ‘scope creep’: once a digital ID exists, the temptation to use it for other purposes—such as accessing public services, policing, or even voting—may grow, raising further civil liberties concerns.

      –

      Advertisements

      Comparison to Existing Laws and Penalties

      UK employers are already legally obliged to check employees’ right to work, with substantial fines and potential criminal sanctions for non-compliance. The Home Office provides guidance and maintains a list of acceptable documents. While enforcement is sometimes criticised as patchy, the legislative framework is well-established. The BRIT Card, therefore, represents a new administrative layer rather than a fundamental legal shift.

      –

      Crucially, the existing system allows for a degree of flexibility that could be lost with a rigid, one-size-fits-all digital ID requirement. For those with complex or unusual immigration circumstances, or those whose documents are in the process of being renewed, this could create real hardship.

      –

      An Alternative: Enhancing the National Insurance System and Targeted Enforcement

      –

      Rather than create an entirely new identity infrastructure, a more proportionate solution could involve modernising the existing national insurance (NI) system. By incorporating a secure photo ID or biometric element into NI numbers, the government could strengthen right-to-work checks without duplicating documentation requirements. Such an enhancement would leverage a system already embedded in the employment process and familiar to employers and workers alike.

      –

      This approach should be paired with targeted, intelligence-led enforcement focusing on high-risk sectors and repeat offenders, instead of blanket bureaucracy. Investment in digital verification tools for employers and regular audits would further bolster compliance, while avoiding the pitfalls of a universal digital ID.

      –

      What would this cost. Well, I would set up a task force of 400 HMRC investigators to chase down illegal workers which I estimate would cost £30million.  Both the individual and the employer would be fined. If they only found 5 illegal worker each and the employer was fines £15000 (the current law allows up to £45k for the first offence), this would cover the cost. However, since it is suggested, there are over 500,000 illegal workers in the UK, there is a potential of £22 Billion to recover.

      –

      I personally would start the fine at £10,000 for businesses and £2500 for individuals. The reason for this is the smaller business would go out of business with a £45k fine, but £10k should be enough of a deterrent. Remember, both the employer and the employee are doing something illegal.

      –

      Those foreign nationals without any right to stay would be sent home.

       

      Personal Perspective: A Flawed Solution in Search of a Problem?

      –

      Labour’s BRIT Card proposal appears to be a politically expedient response to anxiety over immigration and illegal working. However, the costs—financial, administrative, and personal—seem disproportionate to the likely benefits. The risks to privacy and the spectre of digital exclusion cannot be ignored, especially when existing systems can be strengthened at lower cost and with less disruption.

      –

      Public trust in government data handling is already fragile, and the creation of a new, centralised identity database risks eroding it further. Rather than pursue a grand new scheme, the government would do better to focus on pragmatic reforms to the national insurance system and smarter, more targeted enforcement.

       

      –

      , , , , , , , , , , , ,
      Advertisements

      Leave a comment

    • Reforming Pension Tax Relief for Fairness in the UK

      Reforming Pension Tax Relief for Fairness in the UK

      –

      A critical look at the current system and proposals for a more balanced approach

      –

      Tax credits offered on pension contributions are a cornerstone of retirement planning in the UK. The system is designed to incentivise individuals to set aside funds for their later years, with the added benefit of growing these savings in a tax-advantaged environment. While the principle is broadly applauded, the reality of how tax relief is distributed raises important questions of fairness, effectiveness, and sustainability. In this article, I explore the current structure, highlight what I see as its imbalances, and propose a series of reforms aimed at fostering a pension system that is fairer, simpler, and fit for purpose in the 21st century.

      –

      The Current System: How Tax Credits for Pensions Work

      –

      For the majority of savers, pension tax relief is granted ‘at source’—meaning that for every £80 a basic rate taxpayer contributes, the government adds £20 to make a total pension contribution of £100. Higher and additional rate taxpayers are entitled to claim back additional relief through their tax return: for a higher rate (40%) taxpayer, the total tax relief climbs to £40 per £100 contributed, and for additional rate payers, even higher.

      –

      This means that for someone who contributes £600 to their pension fund, and who pays tax at the basic rate (20%), the government tops up their pension by £150, resulting in a total contribution of £750. By contrast, a higher earner can claim a refund that takes their £600 contribution up to £1,000—a £400 uplift, representing 66.6% of their own money, compared to 25% for the basic-rate taxpayer. This reflects the fact that higher earners pay more tax, but also creates a significant disparity in the value of the government’s support.

      –

      A Question of Fairness

      –

      This disparity has long been a subject of debate. The current structure means that those who are already well-off receive the largest tax subsidies for saving—an outcome that may seem at odds with the goals of a progressive tax system. While it is true that higher earners contribute more in tax overall, the pension system arguably magnifies their advantage.

      –

      Consider that a higher-rate taxpayer could receive £400 in tax relief for every £600 they contribute, while a basic-rate taxpayer receives just £150 for the same contribution. Over a working lifetime, this difference is compounded, especially when combined with the power of investment growth and the ability of higher earners to contribute larger sums to their pensions.

      –

      The Annual Allowance and High Earners

      –

      Currently, there is a cap—known as the ‘annual allowance’—on the amount that can receive tax relief each year, set at £40,000. If someone were able to contribute the full £40,000, the basic rate tax relief would amount to £8,000, while a higher-rate taxpayer could claim up to £16,000 in relief.

      –

      Salary sacrifice schemes add further complexity. These arrangements allow both employer and employee to make pension contributions before tax and National Insurance is deducted, resulting in both parties saving on NI contributions. For example, if employer and employee contribute a combined £40,000 via salary sacrifice, there is no income tax, and the employer saves 15% in National Insurance, while the employee saves their own NI contributions. This mechanism, which is especially attractive for high earners, further widens the gap between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder in terms of government-supported savings.

      –

      The Power and Pitfalls of Compounding

      –

      One of the greatest advantages of starting pension savings early is the impact of compound returns. Money invested in a pension grows not just from the returns on the original investment, but also from reinvested gains over time. This means that the earlier someone starts saving, the larger their pot is likely to be in retirement—even without making larger contributions.

      –

      However, it is also true that for many people, earnings are lower earlier in their careers, and significant pension contributions become possible only as incomes rise. Thus, it is not merely the mechanics of tax relief, but the interaction between earnings, contributions, and compounding returns that shapes retirement outcomes.

      Advertisements

      –

      Towards a Fairer System: Proposals for Reform

      –

      Given that pension tax relief is, in effect, a form of public expenditure—costing the Treasury billions each year—there must be reasonable limits. Otherwise, there is a risk that these generous incentives primarily serve those who need them least, while failing to promote adequate pension saving among those on lower or middle incomes.

      –

      Recognising the imbalances, I propose several reforms to the current system, with the twin aims of encouraging early and sustained pension saving while ensuring that the benefits of government support are more evenly distributed.

      –

      1. Flat-Rate Tax Relief

      –

      Rather than linking the rate of pension tax relief to an individual’s marginal income tax rate, I propose a flat rate of 25-30% for all taxpayers. This would mean everyone receives the same percentage uplift on their contributions, making the system simpler and fairer. Basic-rate taxpayers would receive a higher subsidy than they do today, while higher earners would see a reduction, but still benefit from a meaningful incentive to save.

      –

      • Example: At a 30% flat rate, a £1,000 contribution attracts £300 in tax relief, regardless of income.

      –

      2. Addressing Salary Sacrifice and Employer Contributions

      –

      The current system allows significant savings via salary sacrifice, especially for companies and high earners. To address this, I would introduce an employer National Insurance charge of 12.5% on all sums paid into a pension via salary sacrifice. Simultaneously, I propose reducing the general employer NI rate from 15% to 12.5%. This would help to neutralise the cost for employers overall while removing an unintended subsidy favouring the highest earners. This will help simplify the national insurance system and for those who employ lower earners, would encourage job creation.

      –

      3. Eliminating the £100k “Tax Trap”

      –

      Currently, individuals lose their tax-free personal allowance on income between £100,000 and £125,140, resulting in an effective marginal tax rate of 60%. I would remove this taper, restoring universal access to the personal allowance and ensuring that everyone is treated the same by the tax system, regardless of their income.

       

      4. Lifetime Cap on Tax-Privileged Pension Benefits

      –

      I suggest introducing a “lifetime tax relief allowance” for pensions, capped at £300,000 in today’s terms. Over a working life, this would allow an individual to receive up to £300,000 in government-funded tax relief, not an insignificant sum. This is based on a good target of a £1 million pension pot (30% of which would be tax relief), which is more than sufficient for a comfortable retirement for most people. Removing the current lifetime allowance on the pension pot itself would ensure that those who wish to save more can do so, but without further subsidy from the taxpayer.

      –

      5. Reforming Inheritance Rules for Pensions

      –

      I propose reinstating the ability to pass up to £1 million of pension wealth to one’s children free of inheritance tax, provided it is used to fund a pension for them. Any pension assets above this amount or not taken as a pension would be taxed at 20% upon death if not taken as a pension. This recognises the contribution of tax relief to the pension’s growth while ensuring a reasonable transfer of wealth.

      –

      6. Fairness for Families and Partners

      –

      Upon drawdown, I would allow pensioners to split their income with a spouse or long-term partner, recognising the reality that many partners (often women) take time out from the workforce to raise children or care for relatives, resulting in smaller pensions. The current system does not allow for easy redistribution of pension income within households, despite both partners often contributing equally to family finances.

      –

      Balancing Generosity with Sustainability

      –

      It is important to emphasise that pension tax relief is fundamentally a taxpayer-funded benefit. While incentivising pension savings is essential for both individuals and society, the system must not become a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate disproportionate advantage at public expense. By setting clear and reasonable limits, applying relief at the same rate for everyone, and simplifying the rules, the system can be made more transparent and more inclusive.

      –

      Conclusion: A Balanced Policy for the Future

      –

      A reformed system, as outlined above, would preserve the incentive for all individuals to save for their retirement while reducing the disparities that currently favour higher earners. It would also recognise the shared responsibilities of employers, employees, and society as a whole in providing for old age, while ensuring the system remains affordable and sustainable in the long run.

      –

      In summary, my proposals would:

      • Introduce a flat, universal rate of pension tax relief (25–30%)
      • Remove the £100k tax trap
      • Cap lifetime tax relief at £300,000 per individual
      • Adjust employer National Insurance to prevent salary sacrifice loopholes, while lowering the overall rate
      • Allow fairer inheritance of pension wealth up to £1 million
      • Permit spouses and long-term partners to share pension income upon drawdown

      –

      These changes would create a pension system that is simpler, fairer, and more equitable—one that rewards early and consistent saving, supports families, and reflects the principles of a modern welfare state.

       

      Leave a comment

    • The Correct Way to Fly the Union Flag

      The Correct Way to Fly the Union Flag

      –

      The Union Flag, commonly known as the Union Jack, is one of the most recognisable flags in the world. It represents the unity and history of the United Kingdom and is an important symbol of national identity. However, many people are unaware that there is a correct way and an incorrect way to fly the Union Flag.

      –

      Advertisements

      Why Orientation Matters

      –

      If the Union Flag is flown upside down, it is considered a signal of distress. The reason for this is that the white diagonals above and below the red diagonals are not the same thickness on both sides. This subtle detail is the key to telling whether the flag is the right way up.

      –

      How to Identify the Top of the Union Flag

      –

      To ensure you are flying the flag correctly, observe the following guidelines:

      • Wider White Diagonal on Top: On the side closest to the flagpole (the hoist), the broad white part of St Andrew’s cross should be above the thin red diagonal of St Patrick’s cross. On the opposite side (the fly), the broad white should be below the red. This means the upper hoist side should always have the wider white band on top.
      • Incorrect Orientation: If the flag is flown upside down, the thin white bar will appear above the red diagonal by the flagpole, and the broader white will be beneath. This is wrong and should be avoided.

      –

      How to Remember

      –

      Remember this simple rule: The thick white diagonal must always be above the thin red diagonal at the top (by the flagpole).

      Leave a comment

    • Does Keir Starmer think we are stupid

      It was reported on the news today that the government wants to speed up the closing down of the hotels that accommodate illegal immigrants / asylum seekers.

      –

      But all this means is he will kick the problem down and put them up in rented houses within the community.

      –

      Kier, you have not convinced me. You clearly do not understand or appreciate the voters concerns.

      Advertisements

        -email – ifitwasup2me@hotmail.com

        Leave a comment

      • Stamp Duty – Pay on the difference – Rethinking Stamp Duty: Toward a Fairer, More Dynamic Property Market

        Stamp Duty – Pay on the difference – Rethinking Stamp Duty: Toward a Fairer, More Dynamic Property Market

        .

        Reading another article on how the Government is thinking of reforming Stamp Duty on Housing, I thought I would reiterate comments in a previous post, which think is a good, logical solution to stamp duty that would open up the housing market

        –

        The Current Stamp Duty Landscape: Barriers to a Free Market

        –

        Stamp duty has long been a sticking point for homeowners, buyers, and movers across the UK. While intended to generate government revenue, the present regime often acts as a block on the very dynamism needed for a healthy property market. In previous discussions, I highlighted the specific hurdles this tax creates—especially for the older generations, who, if able to move more freely, could release much-needed homes in popular areas for growing families.

        –

        The rigidity of the current stamp duty regime means that those looking to downsize or relocate, perhaps to quieter, rural areas or simply to homes that better suit their needs, are often dissuaded by the financial penalty of an upfront, often considerable, stamp duty bill. Similarly, the tax can freeze out those who would otherwise consider moving for work or life changes, as they are faced with repeated payments for making necessary moves. Ultimately, this stifles the natural flow of the market, trapping people in homes that may no longer fit their circumstances.

        –

        The New Proposal: An Ongoing Annual Tax

        –

        One recently floated proposal suggests replacing the upfront stamp duty with an ongoing annual property charge—specifically, a tax of 0.54% per year applied to the value of any property over £500,000, but only on the amount exceeding that threshold. While this might seem progressive on the surface, it carries its own set of challenges and inequities.

        –

        For one, this policy would disproportionately impact homeowners in the south of England, and especially in London, where property values regularly exceed the £500,000 mark even for relatively modest homes. By contrast, those in the north—myself included—are far less likely to be affected, simply due to the regional disparities in house prices. While this may seem like a boon for those of us outside the capital, the principle of fair taxation is paramount. A tax should be equitable, not geographically arbitrary.

        –

        A New Stamp Duty Approach: Tax the Move, Not the Home

        –

        To address these issues and unlock the property market’s potential, I propose a more dynamic, just, and effective approach: a stamp duty that applies only to the difference between the value of the property you sell and the one you buy.

        • If you “move up the ladder”—buying a more expensive home than the one you’re leaving—you pay stamp duty on the increase.
        • If you move sideways (buying at a similar price) or downsize (buying cheaper), you pay no stamp duty at all.
        • The tax would only kick in for homes over £250,000, helping first-time buyers and those with lower-priced properties avoid the tax entirely.

        –

        A suggested rate of 5% applied to the difference would, in my view, generate at least as much, if not more, revenue for the government—precisely because it would remove the current chokepoints that suppress transaction volumes.

        –

        Advertisements

        Breaking Down the Benefits

        • Encourages Downsizing: Older homeowners, no longer deterred by hefty stamp duty bills, would be freer to move to homes that suit their changing needs, releasing larger family homes into the market for the next generation.
        • Supports Mobility: Those whose careers require frequent moves would not be unfairly penalised by paying stamp duty multiple times on properties of similar value. Instead, tax would only apply when they actually “trade up.”
        • Boosts Market Fluidity: Removing these artificial blockers would likely increase the number of property transactions, stimulating the market and supporting related industries from removals to renovations.
        • Fairness Across Regions: By taxing only the value gained in a move, rather than the absolute price, the system becomes less vulnerable to regional price disparities. Taxpayers in high-value areas are not automatically penalised, and those in lower-value regions are not left out of the conversation.
        • First-Time Buyer Relief: Setting the threshold at £250,000 protects those entering the market for the first time, while ensuring the focus remains on higher value, higher-impact transactions.

        –

        Practical Example

        Consider a family moving from a £500,000 house near a school to a £500,000 bungalow in the countryside. Under the current regime, they might pay as much as £15,000 in stamp duty—simply to move from one home of equal value to another. Under my proposal, they would pay nothing, as the change in value is zero. Alternatively, someone buying a second home for £500,000 without selling another property would pay 5% on £250,000 (the amount over the £250,000 threshold), amounting to £12,500.

        –

        Conclusion: Unlocking the Market for All

        In summary, a stamp duty system based on the difference between what you sell and what you buy offers a fairer, more efficient, and economically sensible solution to the UK’s property tax puzzle. It encourages mobility, supports families at every stage of life, and reduces artificial barriers that clog up the market. Most importantly, it treats taxpayers across regions with greater equity.

        –

        As the government considers the next phase of property tax reform, I urge policymakers to prioritise approaches that reward movement rather than punish it, ensuring that stamp duty is a catalyst for, rather than a barrier to, a more vibrant and accessible housing market for all.

        Leave a comment

      • Reforming the House of Lords: Towards a Fairer and More Representative System- #House of lords, #Reform

        Reforming the House of Lords: Towards a Fairer and More Representative System- #House of lords, #Reform

        Evaluating the Current Structure and Proposing Proportional Representation for the Upper Chamber

        –

        The House of Lords, as the United Kingdom’s unelected upper chamber, continuously finds itself at the centre of debates surrounding democracy, fairness, and representation. Recent calls, such as those by Nigel Farage for the inclusion of peers from minor parties, have reignited conversations about the legitimacy and composition of the Lords. With the current make-up reflecting historical patterns more than present-day electoral realities, questions arise about whether the system adequately serves the modern British populace.

        –

        The Current Composition of the House of Lords

        –

        At present, the House of Lords comprises approximately 830 members, distributed as follows:

        • Conservative: 285
        • Labour: 209
        • Crossbench: 181
        • Liberal Democrat: 76
        • Other: 79

        –

        This structure is a byproduct of centuries of political evolution, with life peers, hereditary peers, and bishops all contributing to a complex tapestry of backgrounds and allegiances. However, the figures above highlight a significant imbalance. The numbers of Lords affiliated with major parties do not reflect recent election results or the popular vote, but are instead the outcome of decades of appointments, retirements, and the gradual reforms that have shaped the chamber.

        –

        Is the System Fair?

        –

        To answer whether the House of Lords is fair, one must first define what fairness in political representation means. In a representative democracy, fairness is often equated with proportionality—the idea that the distribution of seats should, in some way, mirror the distribution of public support as expressed in elections. By this benchmark, the House of Lords falls short.

        –

        The Lords is not elected; its members are appointed, inherit their positions, or serve ex officio. This system has preserved valuable expertise and independence, especially among crossbenchers, but it also means that party-political appointees can entrench the dominance of established parties regardless of changes in public opinion. The current composition, therefore, is heavily skewed by historical results and does not adapt dynamically to the shifting political landscape.

        –

        While Labour currently enjoys a substantial majority in the House of Commons, twice as many people in the last general election voted for other parties than for Labour. Yet, Labour’s dominance is cemented by first past the post election result  and does not accurately represent the current political preferences of the nation.

        –

        Disconnection from the Popular Vote

        –

        One of the most glaring issues with the House of Lords is its disconnection from the popular vote. The 2019 General Election saw the following approximate percentages:

        • Labour: 33.7%
        • Conservative: 23.7%
        • Reform (including Brexit Party): 14.29%
        • Liberal Democrat: 12.22%
        • Others (Green, SNP, Sinn Féin, etc.): 16.9%

        –

        The Lords’ current makeup does not reflect these numbers in any meaningful way. For instance, minor parties such as the Reform, Greens and SNP have a negligible presence, despite receiving millions of votes nationally. This lack of proportionality is not only unfair to voters who support smaller parties but also undermines the diversity of perspectives necessary for thorough scrutiny and debate.

        –

        The First Past the Post Shortcomings

        –

        The UK’s First Past the Post electoral system already tends to exaggerate the dominance of the two main parties in the House of Commons. Applying a similar “winner-takes-all” logic to the appointment of Lords compounds this distortion. As it stands, a party can receive a plurality of votes and yet command a disproportionate influence in both chambers. The Lords, far from acting as a corrective or counterbalance, ends up reinforcing the inequities found in the Commons.

        –

        Moreover, the presence of hereditary peers and life appointments means that the chamber evolves only slowly, if at all, in response to public sentiment. This inertia can breed disengagement and cynicism among voters, who may feel that their views are not just under-represented in government but ignored altogether.

        –

        A Proposal for Proportional Representation in the Lords

        –

        To realign the House of Lords with the principles of fairness and democracy, a radical reimagining is required. One solution would be to allocate seats in the Lords according to the proportion of the popular vote each party receives in the most recent general election. Under this model, appointments would be distributed as follows:

        • Labour: 33.7%
        • Conservative: 23.7%
        • Reform: 14.29%
        • Liberal Democrat: 12.22%
        • Other: 16.9%

        –

        If the total number of Lords were reduced from 830 to 500, the seat allocation would be:

        • Labour: 169
        • Conservative: 119
        • Reform: 71
        • Liberal Democrat: 61
        • Other: 80

        –

        In this scenario, each party leader would be responsible for appointing individuals to fill their party’s share of seats, following the result of each general election. This would ensure that the House of Lords reflects the current political climate and the electorate’s true preferences.

        –

        Advantages of Proportional Representation

        –

        Adopting proportional representation for the House of Lords offers several key benefits:

        • Enhanced Legitimacy: The Lords would finally gain a clear democratic mandate, improving public trust in its role and recommendations.
        • Diversity of Thought: Smaller parties and minority viewpoints would be guaranteed a voice, enriching debates and policy scrutiny.
        • Checks and Balances: The chamber could better hold the government to account, preventing dominance by a single party and ensuring robust challenge to ill-considered legislation.
        • Cost Savings: Reducing the number of peers from 830 to 500 would significantly cut the cost of the Lords—making it more efficient and less burdensome for taxpayers.
        • Dynamic Adaptation: By reassessing appointments after each election, the House would remain contemporary and responsive to shifts in public opinion.
        • –

        –

        -Addressing Potential Criticisms

        –

        Some critics may argue that proportional representation would turn the Lords into a “mini-Commons,” undermining its distinctiveness as a revising chamber. However, this can be mitigated by maintaining a proportion of crossbenchers or independent members, selected through an open and transparent process to bring in expertise from outside party politics.

        –

        Others may worry that party leaders would simply stack the Lords with loyalists. To counteract this, an independent appointments commission could vet all nominees to ensure they meet standards of integrity, expertise, and independence of thought.

        –

        Finally, the tradition-minded may mourn the loss of an ancient institution. Yet, the House of Lords has evolved many times over the centuries—from a bastion of hereditary privilege to a more modern, if imperfect, assembly. Reforming its composition would represent another step in its long adaptation to the needs of the British people.

        –

        Advertisements

        Conclusion

        –

        The House of Lords as currently constituted is a relic of a political past that no longer serves the needs of the United Kingdom. Moving towards proportional representation, reducing the overall number of peers, and empowering all segments of society to have a voice would bring the Lords closer in line with the democratic ideals it is meant to serve.

        –

        Such reform would not only enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lords but would also ensure that no single party could dominate with just a minority of the vote—a flaw that currently undermines the very purpose of the upper chamber. As the country continues to grapple with questions of constitutional reform, the time is ripe for a bold, principled, and representative House of Lords: one that reflects the will of the people and the full spectrum of British society.

        Leave a comment

      • 280 migrants arrested, only 89 to be deported! Why?

        280 migrants arrested, only 89 to be deported! Why?

        I read today in the Daily Express that 280 migrants have been arrested in food delivery rider raids.

        –

        About time something is started but that is not enough. The post goes onto say that 89 of these are set to be kicked out of the UK and that 59 may (I repeat may) lose their tax funded accommodation and support payment. The above really does not deal with the issues in any depth. Another sticking plaster.

        Advertisements

        –

        Firstly, only deporting 89, They have come over here illegally and are working illegally. They have clearly committed 2 offences. 

        –

        In another article on the same page, regarding the protester outside hotels, the government has been quoted as saying, we will never tolerate unlawful or violent behaviour. Whilst I agree with this, it is abundantly clear from the above that the government would and does tolerate unlawful behaviour, otherwise 280 migrants arrested would be deported.

        –

        I have a saying that i use often,

        if you are going to have standards, make sure you have at least 2. (this is meant to be a joke but seems like the politicians consider it a rule)

        –

        The next point is the removal of tax funded accommodation and support payment, what a pointless policy. If the government does this, what will the migrants do?  They will turn to crime.

        –

        So what would I do

        It seems straight forward to me, as they have already committed 2 offences, they should be deported forthwith. We should have a fast-track process / court to deal with this. As the government said, we should not tolerate unlawful behaviour.

        –

        Advertisements

        The illegal migrant issue is only getting worse, the country does not have the space to take all these migrants, approx. 1 million last year. There is not enough housing, the NHS does not have the capacity etc. The government finances (My taxes) cannot support the situation. As for the crimes that are being committed, you only need to have a look at the statistic (and understand them) and you should be extremely concerned.

        Leave a comment

      • Call me a Cynic – One in, One Out Migration Policy

        Call me a Cynic – One in, One Out Migration Policy

        Highlighting a Critical Flaw in the UK Government’s One-In, One-Out Migration Policy

        –

        The Unintended Consequence of Repeated Channel Crossings

        –

        The UK government’s “one in, one out” migration policy has been presented as a balanced approach to controlling immigration, aiming to deter unauthorized arrivals by stipulating that for each migrant arriving by irregular means – such as crossing the Channel – another will be deported, and in their place, the UK will take a migrant from a designated safe country. While this approach might, at first glance, appear to be a pragmatic solution, it contains a significant and problematic loophole that undermines its intended purpose.

        –

        The Issue of Recurring Channel Crossings

        –

        One of the fundamental flaws lies in the policy’s inability to address repeat attempts by the same individuals. Under the current framework, a migrant who is intercepted crossing the Channel is subject to deportation under the one in, one out scheme. However, once deported, there is little to prevent that individual from attempting to cross again. If they succeed, they once more qualify for deportation, and the cycle repeats.

        –

        Each instance is treated as a separate “in”, and so the UK agrees to take another individual from abroad in exchange. In effect, a single determined migrant could, through multiple crossings and subsequent removals, trigger the acceptance of several other migrants into the UK – all while the original individual continues to reattempt entry.

        –

        A Policy That Multiplies, Rather Than Resolves, the Problem

        –

        The main intention behind the one in, one out policy is to create a disincentive for irregular migration and to keep numbers controlled. However, by allowing the same person to be counted multiple times, the policy risks inflating the number of migrants accepted into the UK in exchange for a single individual’s repeated actions. Instead of dealing with “one migrant, one solution”, the net result is a multiplication of arrivals.

        –

        This loophole could be exploited not just by individuals, but by smuggling networks, who may encourage repeat attempts knowing that each new crossing has broader implications on accepted numbers. The UK’s willingness to take new arrivals in exchange for every individual intercepted, without addressing repeat offenders, creates a perverse incentive: the more times an individual tries, the more people are ultimately granted entry.

        –

        So What would I do

        –

        I would abandon this policy of one in, one out.

        –

        We need a policy  that covers all aspects of Illegal Immigration, including specialised detention, clear rules on immediate deportation, specialist courts for quick processing of those working illegally or immigrants caught carrying out criminal offences.

        –

        We need robust and quick deportation rules for immigrants that break our laws, with no appeal. If they are in our country, they should obey our laws.

        –

        I believe which ever political party comes up with the most robust policy for the next election will win the next election. I know who is winning this one at the moment!

        Leave a comment

      • Solutions for Migrant Accommodation: Lessons from the Past

        Solutions for Migrant Accommodation: Lessons from the Past

        I talked about what i would do regarding illegal migrant accommodation in my last post.

        –

        I came across a Vlog on Threads today by “bruceunfiltered” that highlighted this in detail.

        –

        “Has everyone forgotten what we did 5 years ago. They actually built a 4000 bed hospital inside an exhibition centre in just 9 days. Military led, warehouse converted fully functional , no excuses.”

        –

        Britain has 14 million sq feet of warehouse space so we have the capacity. As for the quality, if it was good enough for the our sick and elderly, it will be good enough for illegal immigrants,

        –

        We should only provide adequate, not a luxury hotel.

        –

        Check out whole Vlog on threads bruceunfiltered

        –

        https://www.threads.com/@bruceunfiltered/post/DMsHkuSI04j?xmt=AQF0kJvOz9q_o9s-TKYy7mMgXBLz-OB0Une0-e_FxtmsBA

          Leave a comment

        • The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the British Taxpayer

          The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the British Taxpayer

          An Overview of Financial Impact and Migrant Numbers

          –

          Introduction

          Illegal immigration has become a significant point of discussion within the United Kingdom, with concerns about its financial impact on public services and government budgets. This report aims to provide a clear overview of the estimated costs to the British taxpayer, specifically focusing on hotel accommodation, social benefits, NHS expenditure, and the scale of illegal immigration in recent years.

          –

          Understanding Illegal Immigration

          Illegal immigration refers to the act of entering or residing in the UK without legal permission, which can encompass individuals who overstay their visas, enter clandestinely, or seek asylum but remain after a failed application. This group is distinct from those who arrive through legal migration channels or who have formal refugee status.

          –

          Costs of Hotel Accommodation

          One of the most visible costs associated with illegal and asylum-related migration in recent years has been the use of hotels to house migrants awaiting resolution of their status. Due to a shortage of suitable accommodation and delays in processing, many individuals have been placed in hotels at significant cost.

          • It is estimated has reported that the cost of housing asylum seekers (which includes both legal and those with unresolved status) in hotels has reached over £8 million per day as of 2025.
          • This equates to roughly £2.84 billion per year spent on hotel accommodation alone.

          –

          Benefits and Public Assistance

          Generally, illegal immigrants are not eligible for mainstream public benefits such as Universal Credit, housing benefit, or child benefit. However, those with pending asylum claims may receive a subsistence allowance and accommodation through the asylum support system.

          • Asylum seekers who are awaiting a decision are provided with basic support, amounting to around £45 per week per person, on top of accommodation.  Additional cost to taxpayer over £1Billion per year.
          • For those without recourse to public funds, only emergency assistance or support for children may be provided.
          • The overall expenditure on such support has increased in recent years, largely due to the rise in case backlogs.

          –

          NHS Costs

          Healthcare costs related to illegal immigration are difficult to calculate precisely, as emergency care is provided to all individuals in the UK regardless of status, while non-urgent care is chargeable for undocumented migrants. However, enforcement of these charges is inconsistent, and some costs fall onto the NHS.

          • Estimates of the cost of NHS care for all visitors and temporary migrants (including illegal immigrants) are in the range of £300–£400 million per year, though only a portion of this is directly attributable to people without legal status.
          • Emergency care, maternity, and certain infectious disease treatments are provided free of charge to protect public health.

          –

          Numbers of Illegal Immigrants

          Accurately quantifying the number of illegal immigrants is inherently challenging due to the nature of their status. However, several estimates and government data points exist.

          • In 2019, the Pew Research Center estimated there were between 800,000 and 1.2 million undocumented migrants living in the UK.
          • Since 2018, the number of people arriving in the UK by small boats across the English Channel has increased each year. In 2022 alone, over 45,000 people crossed in small boats.
          • Cumulatively, it is estimated that over 175,000 people have arrived via small boats since 2018.

          –

          Asylum Grants

          The number of people granted asylum fluctuates each year, depending on application rates and government policy.

          • Over the past five years, approximately 80,000 individuals have been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the UK.

          –

          Illegal Migrants Working

          There is plenty of evidence that many illegal Migrants are working as fast food delivery riders. In this situation, not only are they not paying taxes, they are taking employment away from someone else.

          –

          Summary

          • Hotel accommodation for migrants now costs the UK taxpayer over £4 billion per year.
          • Direct benefit payments to illegal immigrants are limited, but support for asylum seekers does represent a notable public expense, at least £1 Billion.
          • NHS expenditures for undocumented migrants are hard to pinpoint, but total costs for all visitors and temporary migrants is around £0.5 Billion annually.
          • The number of illegal immigrants in the UK is estimated to be between 800,000 and 1.2 million, that is over 1.5% of the population.  More significantly, that is 2.7% of the working age population.
          •  Small boat arrivals have surpassed 175,000 since 2018.
          • Over 80,000 people have been granted asylum in the last five years.

          –

          Conclusion

          The country cannot continue to support the illegal migrants as it currently does. I should be remembered the word “illegal” ,these people should not be here. We should not tolerate illegal, let alone support it. The cost is at least £5 billion and is continuing to grow with the increase in migrants.

          –

          So What would I do

          –

          Well, we never tried Rwanda, so that is where I would start (or something similar). Any illegal immigrant would have a choice: return home or go to Rwanda for assessment. As they have come here illegally, they will not have permission to stay, so it’s straight to the airport.

          –

          Illegal Immigrants would not be put up in Hotels.  I would utilise empty warehouses, or even build purpose made warehouse that could be equipped with basic facilities. I can already hear people commenting but this would be far better than the shanty town camp site we have seen in Europe / Calais. We should be providing “adequate”, not very comfortable hotels.

          –

          Any companies employing “illegal” immigrants will be fined £10,000 for each occurrence, however it is caused. This should never happen, but it is clear the correct checks are not being done. There will be a fast track court to deal with this that will run 7 days per week with a simple threshold for guilt, have they worked without permission and has the company paid them. Furthermore, those who have been caught of illegal working are deported.

          –

          The UK currently only spent £2 billion on border force. I would double this to provide a significant number of additional officers and administration. The Border force powers will be enhanced so that they can work closely with the police and have the same powers (arrest, search and seizure) but directed towards illegal immigration.

          –

          Where would I get the money from? Well, I have come up with ways to save money in my other blogs but in this case, this will be an investment that will after a period of time, be offset by the saving in the illegal immigration cost.

          –

          These actions may appear harsh to some, but we should not tolerate any illegal activity from foreign nationals, If you do not want to comply with the UK Laws, do not bother coming.

          –

          France’s  President Macron  made a comment  that basically said the UK was a “soft touch.”. He is right and the government needs to deal with this. However, I have no confidence that this Labour government has the ability to take action.  So, we wait for another 4 years of matters getting worse causing the country to become more divided than ever.

          –

          There is so much more that can be said on the subject and  I am sure further comments will be made in future.

            Leave a comment

          • Not saving enough for our pensions or saving too much that our pension will be taxed when we die

            Not saving enough for our pensions or saving too much that our pension will be taxed when we die

            How comical! – When will the Government get their act together?

            –

            Rachel Reeves previously announced that, from 2027, peoples pension pots will now be included in Inheritance Calculations. Basically taxing your Pension Savings.

            –

            Now the government says people are not saving enough.

            –

            So why do they expect people to save to pensions if they are going to tax you when you die.

            –

            I am not sure many people fully appreciate the consequences of the Government Policy change that included Pension Pots on Inheritance tax calculations.

            –

            If you have a House, a Pension Pot , some savings , a car etc with a combined value £500,000, as an individual, your estate will be taxed on the excess. Given the average house price in London is £675k and assuming it is in joint names, £337k is used up, leaving £163k in savings and private pensions and other assets. The average pension pot at retirement age is over £310k according to “Nuts About Money” and with a little amount of saving, the average person in London will be paying inheritance tax. Put another way, over 50% of London home owners will pay Inheritance Tax.

            –

            Even taking the average house price in the UK plus the average pension pot, the Inheritance tax of £500,000 will be exceeded for the average person at the point of retirement.

            –

            So how do the Government expect to encourage people to save for their pensions knowing that even a modest pension pot is going to be taxed when they die.

            –

            Over the years, I saved hard to ensure i had enough of a pension pot to cover myself and my wife in old age, with the hope/ plan that there would be money left over to fund my children’s pension. However, with the changes the Government has made, this could now be taxed at up to 67%. (see Money Weeks article dated 3rd June 2025 by Katie Williams. Having done what governments have wanted me to do over the years, having kept within the tax rules to ensure no inheritance tax was due, my children will now have to pay inheritance tax. This sucks.

            –

            I have been conned into saving in a Pension envelope only to have it taxed at a greater level than the benefit i received in tax refunds. So why save.

            –

            It seems that the only answer is to spend it and if i run out of money, I suppose the government will give be benefits!!!

            –

            This just confirms to me is that this Government is out of touch and does not understand the consequences of its policy changes, (just like the NI change)

            –

            –

            So what would i do-

            –

            I would allow any unused pension fund to be passed on as a Pension. I would set this limit at , what was the Lifetime allowance for pensions, £1,000,000.

            –

            This unused pension would not be included in the Inheritance tax allowance.

            –

            However, i would include a Tax charge of 10% for any pension passed down up to £1m, as I recognise we need to raise some taxes. Over £1m, i would tax at 20%. My justification for this is that the Pension Pots have benefitted from at least 20% tax relief.

            –

            It becomes a little bit more complicated when we come to final Salary schemes. They have benefitted from tax relief over the years but it is not clear as to what the Fund size is worth against an individual. So for this would calculate the fund size is 20x the annual pension and the provider would then pay 10% of this.

            –

            I believe this will encourage a multi generations pension culture, that over the years will result in less reliance on the state (which means the tax payers)

            –

            I estimate that this would generate at least £5-10Bn plus it would encourage multi generational saving for retirement.

            Leave a comment

          • Junk Mail, Who should pay

            Junk Mail, Who should pay

            Today was the third day in a row that we received 3 pieces of the same junk mail, and on 1 day, we received 2 copies of the same thing, Royal Mail, Ocardo and McCarthy Stone. So 4 copies of each in 3 days.

            –

            It crossed my mind that is a huge quantity of Junk paper that is being delivered and disposed of each day and I have to pay for with higher council taxes.

            –

            So just how much junk mail is being delivered?

            –

            There are 28.4 million households in the UK and if each have 20g (3 pieces) of Junk delivered for 4 days per week, that equates to 568 t per day (568,000kg) or 118,144 t per year. (studies have shown on average 650 pieces of junk mail are distributed to each household per year , giving a total of 17.5Billion per year)

            –

            This is therefore costing at least £15m per year to dispose of. Whilst this is not much in the scheme of things, it is just a “waste of paper”.

            –

            For my local council, Chester and Cheshire West, we are disposing and estimated 480t per year in Junk Mail.

            –

            This is also not doing anything for the environment.

            –

            So what would i do.

            –

            I would ban junk mail distributed without a licence. If you do distribute, you will have to purchase a licence from your local council.

            –

            For small businesses with turnover less than £250,000 per year, the licence will cost £100 per year if delivered by hand by an employee of the business.

            –

            For larger businesses with a Turnover over £250,000, the licence is £1500 per council district plus 1p per piece.

            –

            The benefits of the above is that this will either discourage the ever growing trend of Junk Mail or providing an income to the councils who have to deal with the waste.

            –

            I hope this will actually reduce the waste, but if companies continue to target household without their consent, they will have to pay for the privilege.

                          Leave a comment

                        • Stamp duty on Housing is restricting the Housing Market in the UK

                          I consider the biggest hinderance to the housing market is the middle band of stamp duty between £250 and £925k.

                          Using myself as an example, I am lucky enough to have a nice 4 Bed house in a nice area in Cheshire. It is a good Neighbourhood with good schools, close motorways, train stations and airports. Ideal when you have a young family.

                          The approx. value of this house is £550 to £600k

                          Now, I have considered moving to a different part of the country, perhaps downsizing in terms of size but have a bigger garden, larger garage etc

                          However, if I looked at a £600k house, it would cost me £20,000

                          And if I chose to move further south closer to my grown-up family, where house prices are more expensive, the stamp duty increases significantly.  

                          So, I and many of my generation,  who moved to an area of good schools 20 years ago, have now become a blocker to younger families who want to live in the area and are unable to do so as there are not enough houses on the market.

                          The consequence are: –

                          • that there are less children in the local schools residing in the local village. (I say village but with 7500 residents).  More children must travel. The consequence of which are children do not walking to school (health benefits) and more traffic.
                          • there is a shortage of houses in areas they are needed
                          • there is less tax revenue as less people moving.
                          • less stimulus in the housing market and associated trades
                          • the tax man gets no money out of me as I do not move.

                          It can be seen from the statistics that the revenue on Stamp Duty has fallen from £11.7Bn in 2022/23 to £8.57Bn in 2023/24 and the number of house moves have fallen from 1.06 million to 0.872million over the same period. So we can see, the trend is down causing more of a shortage in the housing market.

                          So. what would I do if it was up 2 me, I have 2 ideas.

                          Option 1 – Changes to Stamp Duty Rates

                          Any House between £150k and £1million would be subject to a 2.0 % levy. If the market stayed the same as 2023/44, this would reduce the tax take by 2.5Bn.

                          However, I consider this will stimulate the market and increase the number of transactions. If this only increase to 2021 / 22 levels, there will be an increase the  number of transactions by 39% in the  under £1m price bracket.(yes that is the amount it has fallen in 2 years , number of transactions have fallen to 845,000 from 1,175,000)

                          So, on the basis of this will stimulate the housing market in third and fourth time buyers sector, and the levels only reach 2021/22 levels, the tax take would be £3.552Bn, a shortfall of £1.167 Bn.

                          In addition to the above, house prices have increased by 6% over the last 2 years  so the revenue will increase by £0.2Bn for houses under £1m and by 0.23Bn for those over £1m

                          This gives  a total receipt of £4.0 Bn

                          So, in theory, I am costing the country £ 0.7Bn. How am I going to pay for this.

                          The government has promised 1.5 million new homes over 5 years which equates to 300,000 per year which would cover the 0.7Bn shortfall.

                          So the above, in my opinion would be revenue neutral as it would stimulate the housing market sufficiently to offset the lowering of taxes.

                          Option 2 – Pay on the difference

                          This is the option I would prefer, and I think it is the fairest.

                          The basis is that you only pay a %age on the difference in house value, so that you only  pay on the increase.

                          If you sell your house for £400k and buy for £550k, you pay on the difference of £150k. I do not have any data on the difference, so I have just made an assessment.

                          So based upon 1.2m transactions, that would generate at 5%, £9.3 Billion, more that recovered in 2023/24.

                          The additional benefits of stimulating the housing market will be felt across all the building trades, from plumbing, extensions, patios, conservatories DIY etc as more and more people will want to improve their new homes. This will create more jobs and greater tax revenue.

                          Leave a comment

                        • Universal Credit out of Control – “NO WORK REQUIREMENTS”

                          Universal Credit out of Control – “NO WORK REQUIREMENTS”

                          I came across this chart from the Government showing the massive increase in the Universal Credit Claimants with “NO WORK REQUIREMENTS”

                          Since 2000, those claiming Universal Credit with a “No Work Requirement” has increased by 400%.

                          That is almost 10% of the working population.

                          One of the many reason we spend £90 Billion (£90,000,000,000.00) per year on Universal Credit.

                          I do not believe we have 4x as many people are unable to work than in 2020.

                          If we could get 25% of these off Universal Credit, we would save £10Bn, enough the increase our policing by 50%, but 25% should not be the target, we should be looking reducing the No Work Requirement element back to 2020 levels, saving a massive £35,Bn.

                          A total overall of the Welfare and Universal Credit system is required, I do not claim that I understand how Universal Credit is meant to work, but if the country is to avoid going bankrupt, this has to change.

                          • UK Student Loan Time Bomb – Needs to Change

                            UK Student Loan Time Bomb – Needs to Change

                            Analysis and Recommendations on UK Student Debt and Interest Payments

                            –

                            Challenges, Current Situation, and Potential Reforms

                            –

                            The issue of student debt in the UK has become both a financial and political challenge, with implications not only for graduates, but for the national balance sheet and future taxpayers as well. Recent figures and trends underscore the mounting scale of the problem.

                            –

                            The Scale of the Challenge

                            Adjusting for average inflation at 2.5% over recent years, the total cost of the student loan programme now exceeds £250 billion in today’s money.

                            –

                            –

                            Higher interest rates, particularly those implemented from September 2022, have sharply increased the burden of student debt. Interest added to outstanding loans soared to £8.3 billion and £15.3 billion in 2023-24 alone. In the latest year, the interest capitalised on student debt was three times the value of repayments made—demonstrating how repayments are failing to keep pace with even the cost of borrowing, let alone reducing the principal.-

                            Advertisements

                            –

                            –

                            By the min 2040’s, the government estimates this to rise to over £500 billion in today’s money. The truth that be simply taking an adjustment of 2,5% inflation, the tru figure will be in excess of £800 billion and I would expect this to be £1 trillion.

                            –

                            Government Accounting and Debt Structure

                            –

                            Current government accounting methods do not show the full scale of student loan costs within annual expenditure figures. Instead, these liabilities are largely kept off the balance sheet, appearing instead as a growing component of government debt and accruing interest payments.

                            –

                            As of now, out of the UK’s £2,800 billion national debt, approximately £266 billion—or nearly 10%—is attributable to student loans. This means the annual interest on student debt alone is close to £10 billion (based on a 10% share of a £105 billion interest bill). Crucially, the total repayments from former students do not cover even this interest, let alone reduce the outstanding capital.

                            Advertisements

                            Long-Term Concerns

                            –

                            This imbalance raises serious questions about the sustainability of the system. With current interest rates and repayment levels, a significant number of borrowers will never fully repay their loans. Inevitably, a large portion of this debt may have to be written off or absorbed by taxpayers in future—i.e. the very taxpayers who may have taken out student loans themselves.

                            –

                            Proposed Solutions

                            –

                            • Lower Student Loan Interest Rates: Align student loan rates with the Bank of England (BoE) base rate and retroactively recalculate past interest charges. Charging higher rates than the government itself can borrow at is neither fair nor economically rational.
                            • Make Extra Payments Tax-Deductible: Allow any voluntary extra repayments to be deducted from taxable income. This would incentivise early repayment, especially among higher earners, and could, with a 50% take-up rate, add £5–10 billion annually to debt reduction efforts.
                            • Simplify Earnings Thresholds: Introduce a uniform minimum earnings threshold of £25,000 for all borrowers, replacing the current array of thresholds which complicate repayment planning and administration.

                            –

                            Assumptions and Next Steps

                            –

                            This analysis is based on available public data, with some necessary assumptions regarding the average outstanding loan size and average age of borrowers. These figures will be refined as more information becomes available.

                            –

                            Conclusion

                            –

                            The current UK student loan system is unsustainable under present conditions. Without reform, the rising tide of student debt will eventually return to the public purse, impacting not just graduates but the entire taxpaying population. The proposed measures offer a starting point for meaningful change, with the aim of building a fairer and more financially robust system for future generations.

                            Feedback and further suggestions are welcome—this is an issue that demands urgent and informed public debate.

                            –






                            , , , , , , , , , , ,
                            , , , , , , , , , ,

                            Leave a comment

                          • Reforming Winter Fuel Allowance: A Fair Approach for All

                            Reforming Winter Fuel Allowance: A Fair Approach for All

                            Following the announcement this week, it looks like the Labour government is going to u turn on the Winter Fuel Allowance. My comments are therefore far more limited than they would been.

                            It is not really a surprise given what a badly implemented policy it was and the way it affected the less well off pensioner. It beggars belief how the government and Rachel Reeves could have thought this was a good idea in the first place.

                            I suppose the reason was, in their election promises, they said they would not put up income tax and national insurance, but said very little on many other issues. This gave them the opportunity to hit people in their pockets in other ways whilst keeping the facade of not going back on election promises. I wonder how that is working out for them! (no increase in national insurance, smash the gangs!)

                            But at least now, they are going to backtrack.

                            The question is to what extent they will roll back this policy? I expect a very limited increase will be announced in the autumn but it will not revert to previous levels of benefit. I also expect it to be complicated to manage causing further waste in Whitehall. We will have to see!

                            So, if it was up to me, what would i do?

                            Firstly, I would get on and announce the change, not wait until the autumn. Why wait? If the people in charge can’t come up with a plan and get on with implementation, they should not be in power.

                            I worked in Civil Engineering for 35 years and knew that deferring a decision was the worst thing we could do. We had to quickly consider the situation and solutions, make a decision and get on with it and live with the consequences.

                            Secondly, one of the injustices of this allowance , whilst it is to help the vulnerable with their winter fuel bill, it also helps the wealthy pensioners.

                            So if we were to limit the payments, it would cause a significant amount of administration to means test the benefit. We want to make things simple.

                            So what i would do, is make it a taxable benefit, so those who pay no tax , get 100% of the benefit. Those on basic taxation they get 80% of the allowance and those on the higher rates will only get 60% of 55% of the allowance.

                            Doing this means all those getting the state pension would get the allowance included in their OAP payments and HMRC would sort the rest via tax code / tax returns. You do not need extra staff to administer the means testing of individuals.

                            The above will cost an additional £1.3 billion when compared with 2024/25 (£311m) but save £0.5 billion when compared with 2023/24

                            And how would I pay for this? Well, as stated in my earlier page on the triple lock, this payment would come out of the massive saving by scrapping the triple lock and just increasing pensions by inflation.

                          • Why the UK Should Scrap the Pension Triple Lock.

                            THE TRIPLE LOCK

                            As many people are aware, the UK state pension increases by either, CPI, earnings or 2.5% minimum. This is great for the pensioner, and I will benefit from this when I get to 67. However, I am not sure that people understand how unfair it is on the younger, working age people who are going to get increasing levels of taxation imposed on them to cover the costs.

                            –

                            Since the triple lock was introduced (2011), the state pension has increased by 80% whilst inflation has only increase by 55%.  Average earnings has increased by 58.8% just keeping ahead of inflation.

                            –

                            So, all those below the state retirement age have been paying a higher and higher proportion of their wages / taxes to cover someone else’s state pension.

                            In fact, if the triple lock continues, the state pension would continue to increase at a higher rate than peoples wages until such time, it becomes impossible to continue due to the size of the black hole in the government’s finances. Things have to change.

                            –

                            To understand the scale of the problem, in 2025-26, the UK government is projected to spend approximately £145.6 billion  on the state pension which equates to £5100 per household per year.

                            –

                            If the increase had been based upon inflation (CPI) alone, the government spending on the state pension would have been about £20 billion less per year.

                            Over the period of time that the triple lock has been place, I estimate the triple lock has cost the country £120 billion extra (2011 to 2025) than it would have cost, had it been calculated by inflation alone.

                            –

                            The problem is only getting bigger.

                            –

                            The projected number of those of pensionable age in the UK will increase from the current 13.4 million to 15.6 million in 10 years, which in today’s terms will increase the bill by £26.34 billion (2.2 million x £11,973 per year)

                            If the level of pension is increase over the next 10 years at the same level of the last 10 years, that will be an increase the cost of the state pension by a further £74 billion resulting in a total annual cost in 2035 of £245 billion.

                            –

                            The country cannot afford this level of triple lock increase that, on average, is always going to be more than wages.

                            –

                            Don’t get me wrong, I do not want the old and vulnerable to be without food and heat. (Winter fuel allowance to be covered on separate Blog) but many pensioners have other private / company pensions, meaning they are not living on state pension alone.

                            –

                            The average personal pension size of someone in their 60’S is £190k which if taking an annuity at 67 would produce and income of over £15k (single life level no guarantee) That is not an insignificant amount, yet they are being increasingly supported by those who are working.

                            –

                            It is reported that currently, 70% of pensioners receive income from private pensions.  This percentage is increasing due to auto-enrollment in pension schemes which means that, only 7% of those under 35 will relying on state pension alone. This gives ample opportunity   and time (42 years) to reduce this percentage.

                            –

                            The other problem with the triple lock happened for the 2 years 2023/24 and 2034/25.

                            –

                            In 2023/24, the pension was adjusted by 10.1% as it was higher than the wage increase of 5.54%. However, the year later, wage rises rose by 8.5%, basically because wages were increased due to the effects of inflation the previous year. —

                            So the pension had the effect of the inflation of 2023/24 in both years. None of the political parties wanted to rock the boat as an election was coming up  and did not want to address the situation.

                            –

                            My solution

                            • Scrap the triple lock and just link State Pension Increases to Inflation. This should keep the status quo for pensioners so that they are no better or worse off due to inflation.
                              • This would save £34 billion per year (in the year 2034/35) if the increase was based upon what happened over the last 10 years with a total saving over 10 years of £190 billion.
                              • I hear in my head all those critics that say, well the last 10 years have been exceptional, due to covid and the effects of the Ukraine war on fuel costs, which I am inclined to agree with.
                              • I estimate that if we exclude the extreme triple lock adjustment years, the saving would still be £18 billion or £79 billion over 10 years. The pensioners will still get increase covering inflation / cost of living so that they are no worse or better off. If they wish to be better off, they need to do that as an individual by having a job or making provision before retirement, as 70% of people already do and 93% of under 35’s do.
                            • Do not allow opt out of Private Pension.
                            • Self employed required to make pension provision and this must be detailed on annual tax return.
                            • The pensions credit system remains as is, allowing a top up to pensions for those who fall short. Overtime as more people retire with some form of Personal Pension, the cost of this will fall.
                            • Use some of this money to reinstate the Winter Fuel Payment to those whose income is below a certain level. Those high earning pensioners do not need it and should be excluded (A separate Blog on this subject will be done in due course) This would cost a max of £1,889 billion of the saving (£2.2 billion(2024 cost) minus 0.311 billion(2025 cost)

                            –

                            Conclusion

                            • All the Major parties should get together and agree on the removal of the Triple lock. However, I fear none of them have the bottle and there will always be one who will pledge to keep it on the hope it will get them into power.
                            • However, I think if this is all explained in detail why we cannot continue, the vast majority of the pensioners will understand, after all, those with private pensions have all benefited from the tax breaks that have helped build up their pension pots.

                          • Finding Solutions to Political Issues in Britain

                            Finding Solutions to Political Issues in Britain

                            Having retired (early), I have more time on my hands to get annoyed at the news and politicians. (becoming a grumpy old man).

                            –

                            I hear comments on the radio from people that just want to criticise with very few coming up with practical solutions that could work.

                            –

                            As for the politicians, they just say the opposite of the others and I think their conduct on many occasions is poor and rude. These politicians should be held to the highest of standards but all too often, they fall short.

                            –

                            Advertisements

                            I have been waiting to see what Reform would have to say, given their increase in popularity. My concern is that they are slipping into the same old roll of telling the public what they want to here, without a credible financial plan on how this can be achieved. This week there was talk of increasing the personal tax allowance to £20k. Whilst we would all welcome it, where will the money come from and by when. We cannot complain about public services if we are not prepared to pay our taxes.

                            –

                            Labour, with their large majority have made several major blunders including Winter fuel allowance, Employees NI and Inheritance tax on pensions and farms (I am not sure many people appreciate the consequences of this). Yes,they needed to control the spend and try and balance the budget, but I thinks they have gone about it the wrong way. I do not think the public will forgive them.

                            –

                            As for the Conservatives, not sure what to say, they are in a state of flux, without identity and clear direction.

                            –

                            The LibDems, they should sit in the centre, but they seem too bland.

                            –

                            What we need is a party that will sit in the centre and take policies from both sides as it sees fit, but all the parties are too stuck in their ways. I wonder if any of the Parties have the capability to adapt over the coming years to put the “Great” back in Britain.

                            –

                            Advertisements

                            So, my Blog is to take some of the problems issues we have as a country and come up with workable solutions, I intend to explain my logic and as best i can have the financial basis for my proposals.

                            –

                            The subjects that annoy me currently are

                            • Winter Fuel Allowance
                            • Increase in Employers National Insurance
                            • Inheritance tax on Pension Pots.
                            • Student loans.
                            • Changes to non-dom status and the exodus of the wealthy
                            • Stamp Duty on Housing
                            • Paying For illegal Immigrants (Not genuine asylum seekers)
                            • Politicians making statement that fall flat when confronted with reality “Smash the Gangs” etc
                            • –

                            So, I think I will comment on the above over the coming months and put forward my potential solutions that I would implement if it was up to me. (Ifitwasup2me).

                            –

                            I would welcome constructive feedback to my comments and would alter my views based upon reasoned arguments.