General News Thread

[bovril]

9 hours ago, MaidstoneFox said:

We do actually need children though. I think it's been pointed out on here before that a number of countries are facing serious population decline and in some cases have put in place quite generous incentives for people to have children. In Hungary, mothers who have more than two children, have a lifetime exemption from paying tax! Imagine if we brought that in here!

Reality is, we need more future tax payers, we have an aging population.

Hungary's TFR is still well below replacement levels and I think has actually declined slightly since 2020. I don't think government policy has actually managed to make much of a difference to this anywhere. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

The thing is that the TFR is NFT to the GBR and that means that capital RTN is almost negligible to the WWF and that's not even accounting for the KLF whose gross OMD is ten times the output of the ELO when you add on the ADHD and PSR, though, of course, you don't factor in the RSVP factor, not the IDF, which would compound the C3PO, not to mention MOT and OMG.

[Sampson]

Just now, Trav Le Bleu said:

The thing is that the TFR is NFT to the GBR and that means that capital RTN is almost negligible to the WWF and that's not even accounting for the KLF whose gross OMD is ten times the output of the ELO when you add on the ADHD and PSR, though, of course, you don't factor in the RSVP factor, not the IDF, which would compound the C3PO, not to mention MOT and OMG.

WTF?

[Trav Le Bleu]

Just now, Sampson said:

WTF?

IKR!

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, JonnyBoy said:

RR doesn’t even know how they are going to charge and track the EV’s 3p a mile 🤣 what a shambles. Couldn’t make it up 

Maybe garages will have to note mileage numbers when serviced?   Maybe you will have to supply the numbers yourself. Either way it will require looking after which will add considerable cost and no doubt have loopholes. 
more ‘good ideas’ which haven’t been thought through properly.  We will eventually move to pay per mile for all vehicles but the tech isn’t ‘ready to go’. 

[Sampson]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn0g0xnr7klt
 

Net Migration dropped massively to around 200,000 after being up at 1mil only a year or two before.

 

Let’s see if all of a sudden these Reform voters will jump back to Labour and Tories as we were told they would do once they reduce net migration (my guess is obviously not because Farage will always push the goalposts and say “we need to be net negative immigration”).

Edited 27 November 2025 by Sampson

[MaidstoneFox]

2 hours ago, JonnyBoy said:

RR doesn’t even know how they are going to charge and track the EV’s 3p a mile 🤣 what a shambles. Couldn’t make it up 

Possibly, and I'm only guessing here, owners will have to submit mileage and this will be cross-checked, potentially with gps information from the cars. But yeh, it's still a bit pie-in-the-sky and 18 months away, so has the potential to be kicked further down the road.

More a political point at this stage to show that 'we are also taxing wealthier EV owners'.

[JonnyBoy]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Maybe garages will have to note mileage numbers when serviced?   Maybe you will have to supply the numbers yourself. Either way it will require looking after which will add considerable cost and no doubt have loopholes. 
more ‘good ideas’ which haven’t been thought through properly.  We will eventually move to pay per mile for all vehicles but the tech isn’t ‘ready to go’. 

 

i know my EV which is leased (Tesla) doesn't get annual service. Only at 3 years it has MOT. 

 

Government pushing EV's last few years as well, charging infrastructure nowhere near good enough either. 

Edited 27 November 2025 by JonnyBoy

[bovril]

35 minutes ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn0g0xnr7klt
 

Net Migration dropped massively to around 200,000 after being up at 1mil only a year or two before.

 

Let’s see if all of a sudden these Reform voters will jump back to Labour and Tories as we were told they would do once they reduce net migration (my guess is obviously not because Farage will always push the goalposts and say “we need to be net negative immigration”).

They'll spin the news as Brexit and Tory policy starting to have an effect and how it'd be even lower if it wasn't for migrant loving Kier

[Innovindil]

54 minutes ago, bovril said:

They'll spin the news as Brexit and Tory policy starting to have an effect and how it'd be even lower if it wasn't for migrant loving Kier

However, migration experts have pointed out that much of this reduction is actually because of measures brought in by the Conservatives in 2024.

 

I thought we were supposed to listen to the experts? 

 

For chuckles I'll go for a combo of clueless tories finally seeing the light after reform moved in for their voters/not even people from war torn or poverty stricken countries want to live under this Labour government. 

[bovril]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

However, migration experts have pointed out that much of this reduction is actually because of measures brought in by the Conservatives in 2024.

Told you! 😂 

 

(You don't expect me surely to actually read links in posts I'm replying to?) 

[Innovindil]

20 minutes ago, bovril said:

Told you! 😂 

 

(You don't expect me surely to actually read links in posts I'm replying to?) 

Tbh based on your quoting skills I'd say you couldn't even be arsed to read my entire post never mind an entire BBC thread. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

What's the rate of the tax on private pensions and is it just employee contributions or employee and employer combined? 

[Greg2607]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn0g0xnr7klt
 

Net Migration dropped massively to around 200,000 after being up at 1mil only a year or two before.

 

Let’s see if all of a sudden these Reform voters will jump back to Labour and Tories as we were told they would do once they reduce net migration (my guess is obviously not because Farage will always push the goalposts and say “we need to be net negative immigration”).

here's your uncomfortable truth................

 

for every 100,000 reduction in Net Migration figures.... there is a correlating reduction in GDP of around £7bn. 

 

so..... we've just reduced Net Migration by around 400,000 - and correlating GDP of around £28bn..... and have subsequently raised taxes in this budget by..... (drum roll please) - £26bn....

 

We are vanishingly poor in this country or articulating the benefits of SKILLED migration.... the entire topic has become toxic and that is a massive shame for us as a country. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

35 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

What's the rate of the tax on private pensions and is it just employee contributions or employee and employer combined? 

Don't quite understand the question, old chap. 

 

Do you mean tax relief? You get tax relief at your marginal rate on employee contributions, employer contributions are paid gross and they get corporation tax relief on those. 

 

If the employee contribution effectively becomes part of the employer contribution and salary is 'sacrificed' to accommodate this, you're not paying income tax equivalent to the tax relief you'd have got from paying it as an employee contribution. 

 

As you're earning less you're also paying a bit less NI and this is the bit where the rules are changing, in that the extent you can benefit from this additional perk is being restricted.

 

I've been taking advantage of this as I've been ploughing loads of money into my pension as I hate my life (exaggeration, it's alright) and although I can't be sure as all the online calculators for this are being updated for obvious reasons, the actual cost to me isn't going to be much. 

 

Like the EV charge that I should be seeing as 'a bombshell' or 'slap in the face' if I were to immerse myself in a particular media ecosphere, I'd actually file this under a change to a very generous regime that I've benefited enormously from and will continue to do so, albeit at a slightly lower level. The suggestions in the Telegraph et al that this is a nonsensical retirement ruining tax raid I would file under the shrieking of twats.

 

I don't know if this answers your question in any way or form, apologies if not

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Just now, Bellend Sebastian said:

Don't quite understand the question, old chap. 

 

Do you mean tax relief? You get tax relief at your marginal rate on employee contributions, employer contributions are paid gross and they get corporation tax relief on those. 

 

If the employee contribution effectively becomes part of the employer contribution and salary is 'sacrificed' to accommodate this, you're not paying income tax equivalent to the tax relief you'd have got from paying it as an employee contribution. 

 

As you're earning less you're also paying a bit less NI and this is the bit where the rules are changing, in that the extent you can benefit from this additional perk is being restricted.

 

I've been taking advantage of this as I've been ploughing loads of money into my pension as I hate my life (exaggeration, it's alright) and although I can't be sure as all the online calculators for this are being updated for obvious reasons, the actual cost to me isn't going to be much. 

 

Like the EV charge that I should be seeing as 'a bombshell' or 'slap in the face' if I were to immerse myself in a particular media ecosphere, I'd actually file this under a change to a very generous regime that I've benefited enormously from and will continue to do so, albeit at a slightly lower level. The suggestions in the Telegraph et al that this is a nonsensical retirement ruining tax raid I would file under the shrieking of twats.

 

I don't know if this answers your question in any way or form, apologies if not

No so the tax announced yesterday on private pension contributions.

 

It's here at the bottom, but I pressume the higher rate NICS rate is wrong. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9zx8z5d1no 

[Bellend Sebastian]

18 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

No so the tax announced yesterday on private pension contributions.

 

It's here at the bottom, but I pressume the higher rate NICS rate is wrong. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9zx8z5d1no 

Which bit? I can't see anything in there that's not covered by what I said

[MaidstoneFox]

50 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

here's your uncomfortable truth................

 

for every 100,000 reduction in Net Migration figures.... there is a correlating reduction in GDP of around £7bn. 

 

so..... we've just reduced Net Migration by around 400,000 - and correlating GDP of around £28bn..... and have subsequently raised taxes in this budget by..... (drum roll please) - £26bn....

 

We are vanishingly poor in this country or articulating the benefits of SKILLED migration.... the entire topic has become toxic and that is a massive shame for us as a country. 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I'll be honest and probably quite controversial here. As someone who comes from an immigrant family I think there are too many people at every level in this country who are complacent, uninterested in getting an education and lack ambition. They're quite happy to wait for easy, inherited wealth, or claim benefits and top up with tax avoidant side hustles. My dad came over here when he was 14 and worked 60 hour weeks in all weathers, digging ditches, until he was 64. I just can't imagine, who, but another immigrant, would opt for that.

[danny.]

14 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

I understand that's a very popular viewpoint. 

An alternative consideration for you though: people might have been able to afford 3 kids but then lose their job. 

Also don't we need the birth rate to be a decent level? 

I'm really unclear on the cost as ultimately the money will all be spent and taxed multiple times as it's going straight into the real economy so the cost will be offset by recovery elsewhere

Support for job losses is a different thing to constant support for multiple children regardless of employment status.
 

 

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This is an interesting dilemma. It's also a painful one, because as far as I can see, there are no good options to deal with it. Either the UK looks to do its part to limit world population growth by disincentivising people having more children, in which case there will be a serious demographic crisis sooner rather than later, or the government does what it did yesterday to encourage population growth, in which case we continue to contribute to a problem of increasing population and decreasing finite resources until Darwin steps in and sorts it out. Brutally. 

 

I'm hoping that someone smarter than me can come up with a third option there. 

Third option would be to neither grow nor shrink the population significantly. Which would be for a nuclear family to have two children. Isn’t this what a two child cap incentives?

 

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

here's your uncomfortable truth................

 

for every 100,000 reduction in Net Migration figures.... there is a correlating reduction in GDP of around £7bn. 

 

so..... we've just reduced Net Migration by around 400,000 - and correlating GDP of around £28bn..... and have subsequently raised taxes in this budget by..... (drum roll please) - £26bn....

 

We are vanishingly poor in this country or articulating the benefits of SKILLED migration.... the entire topic has become toxic and that is a massive shame for us as a country. 

GDP is a pretty worthless metric. GDP/capita is the only thing worth looking at. Sure, mass migration increases GDP, but it reduces GDP/capita and makes us all poorer. Why would we want that?

Edited 27 November 2025 by danny.

[danny.]

3 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I'll be honest and probably quite controversial here. As someone who comes from an immigrant family I think there are too many people at every level in this country who are complacent, uninterested in getting an education and lack ambition. They're quite happy to wait for easy, inherited wealth, or claim benefits and top up with tax avoidant side hustles. My dad came over here when he was 14 and worked 60 hour weeks in all weathers, digging ditches, until he was 64. I just can't imagine, who, but another immigrant, would opt for that.

You’ve just described a hard working person. You find hard working migrants, immigrants and indigenous people. That’s a wild claim that only immigrants work hard. Any data to back that claim?

[bovril]

36 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

That doesn't surprise me.

 

I'll be honest and probably quite controversial here. As someone who comes from an immigrant family I think there are too many people at every level in this country who are complacent, uninterested in getting an education and lack ambition. They're quite happy to wait for easy, inherited wealth, or claim benefits and top up with tax avoidant side hustles. My dad came over here when he was 14 and worked 60 hour weeks in all weathers, digging ditches, until he was 64. I just can't imagine, who, but another immigrant, would opt for that.

I don't think this is necessarily an argument in favour of migration levels being so high. I also don't know how reflective it is of immigration to the UK since 2020

[MaidstoneFox]

47 minutes ago, danny. said:

You’ve just described a hard working person. You find hard working migrants, immigrants and indigenous people. That’s a wild claim that only immigrants work hard. Any data to back that claim?

Where do i say only immigrants work hard?

[danny.]

7 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

Where do i say only immigrants work hard?

You said "I just can't imagine, who, but another immigrant, would opt for that."

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, danny. said:

Support for job losses is a different thing to constant support for multiple children regardless of employment status.
 

 

Third option would be to neither grow nor shrink the population significantly. Which would be for a nuclear family to have two children. Isn’t this what a two child cap incentives?

 

GDP is a pretty worthless metric. GDP/capita is the only thing worth looking at. Sure, mass migration increases GDP, but it reduces GDP/capita and makes us all poorer. Why would we want that?

Your point about nuclear families assumes people go on benefits before having children, rather than people going on at all stages of life due to unfortunate or other circumstances arriving in their lives. I'm not sure the state should incentivise any particular life choices either personally. 

 

On the bit directed at my comment, around support for multiple children,vi don't really have a strong opinion on the two child cap tbh. The removal is obviously happening because the two child cap does create poverty as people have more than two children and are on benefits. And why should children be not be supported and left to be deprived due to an artificial rule? Let's be honest, that's no strong economic reason to have the two child cap, it's purely because people not on benefits baulk at those with multiple children getting benefits. You might not support people having children they can't afford (though see my other point above) but should the benefit system discriminate against those 3rd and 4th kids? I'm not sure it should. I don't know what the answer is and I'm not sure it's possible to reduce child poverty created by the cap Vs people being unhappy about the resulting benefit payments without the cap.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

 

Third option would be to neither grow nor shrink the population significantly. Which would be for a nuclear family to have two children. Isn’t this what a two child cap incentives?

 

That kind of plateau still results in the aforementioned age demographic crisis as the number of people above 65 will still end up disproportionate to the number of children coming into the workforce to support them. At least in the short term, anyway.