Fifty Four
@fiftyfloor.bsky.social
It's a classic of the 'we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this' genre.
November 23, 2025 at 10:28 AM
It's a classic of the 'we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this' genre.
I think it's true of an awful lot of media from the period. There was a massive and underdiscussed shift toward not hating your characters about 15 years ago, especially on TV.
November 22, 2025 at 6:30 PM
I think it's true of an awful lot of media from the period. There was a massive and underdiscussed shift toward not hating your characters about 15 years ago, especially on TV.
Loving the phrase 'a crackdown on pensions payments'.
2024 Budget : We'll increase taxes on businesses only if they employ people!
Economists : That's awful!
2025 Budget : Hold my beer.
2024 Budget : We'll increase taxes on businesses only if they employ people!
Economists : That's awful!
2025 Budget : Hold my beer.
November 22, 2025 at 5:24 PM
Loving the phrase 'a crackdown on pensions payments'.
2024 Budget : We'll increase taxes on businesses only if they employ people!
Economists : That's awful!
2025 Budget : Hold my beer.
2024 Budget : We'll increase taxes on businesses only if they employ people!
Economists : That's awful!
2025 Budget : Hold my beer.
We're not going to jump back to the pre 2016 situation.
But unless we do another electoral whoopsie, we can keep salami slicing our way back in that direction. It's just going to be painfully slow, because neither side is capable of anything bold.
But unless we do another electoral whoopsie, we can keep salami slicing our way back in that direction. It's just going to be painfully slow, because neither side is capable of anything bold.
November 22, 2025 at 9:56 AM
We're not going to jump back to the pre 2016 situation.
But unless we do another electoral whoopsie, we can keep salami slicing our way back in that direction. It's just going to be painfully slow, because neither side is capable of anything bold.
But unless we do another electoral whoopsie, we can keep salami slicing our way back in that direction. It's just going to be painfully slow, because neither side is capable of anything bold.
I keep seeing this 'not in the mood' phrasing.
Problem is equally they just aren't institutionally capable, right now, of negotiating something this complicated, and nor is the UK.
This was a terrible moment to do something as daft as Brexit because noone is capable of fixing it if they wanted to.
Problem is equally they just aren't institutionally capable, right now, of negotiating something this complicated, and nor is the UK.
This was a terrible moment to do something as daft as Brexit because noone is capable of fixing it if they wanted to.
November 22, 2025 at 9:53 AM
I keep seeing this 'not in the mood' phrasing.
Problem is equally they just aren't institutionally capable, right now, of negotiating something this complicated, and nor is the UK.
This was a terrible moment to do something as daft as Brexit because noone is capable of fixing it if they wanted to.
Problem is equally they just aren't institutionally capable, right now, of negotiating something this complicated, and nor is the UK.
This was a terrible moment to do something as daft as Brexit because noone is capable of fixing it if they wanted to.
Based on number of readers I can't see a justification for intervention.
Real problem is that the BBC and other broadcasters inexplicably believe that anything certain papers write is automatically newsworthy. That is not something that newspaper or media ownership regulation can fix.
Real problem is that the BBC and other broadcasters inexplicably believe that anything certain papers write is automatically newsworthy. That is not something that newspaper or media ownership regulation can fix.
November 22, 2025 at 9:28 AM
Based on number of readers I can't see a justification for intervention.
Real problem is that the BBC and other broadcasters inexplicably believe that anything certain papers write is automatically newsworthy. That is not something that newspaper or media ownership regulation can fix.
Real problem is that the BBC and other broadcasters inexplicably believe that anything certain papers write is automatically newsworthy. That is not something that newspaper or media ownership regulation can fix.
Sorry, I obviously wasn't being clear. The marginal rate at 100k, before considering the withdrawal of childcare subsidies, is 62%.
I think it the right plan would be to take the 62% rate down to 47%, start the 47% rate earlier, and also steadily raise the threshold for the 42% rate somewhat.
I think it the right plan would be to take the 62% rate down to 47%, start the 47% rate earlier, and also steadily raise the threshold for the 42% rate somewhat.
November 21, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Sorry, I obviously wasn't being clear. The marginal rate at 100k, before considering the withdrawal of childcare subsidies, is 62%.
I think it the right plan would be to take the 62% rate down to 47%, start the 47% rate earlier, and also steadily raise the threshold for the 42% rate somewhat.
I think it the right plan would be to take the 62% rate down to 47%, start the 47% rate earlier, and also steadily raise the threshold for the 42% rate somewhat.
The rate is 62%. I think you'll struggle to go much higher.
I personally think the way to fix all of this is for the 47% band to start somewhere around 80k.
In fact strategic aim should probably be to reduce from the 5 main rates (0, 28, 42, 62, 47). To just 0, 28% and 47%.
I personally think the way to fix all of this is for the 47% band to start somewhere around 80k.
In fact strategic aim should probably be to reduce from the 5 main rates (0, 28, 42, 62, 47). To just 0, 28% and 47%.
November 21, 2025 at 1:43 PM
The rate is 62%. I think you'll struggle to go much higher.
I personally think the way to fix all of this is for the 47% band to start somewhere around 80k.
In fact strategic aim should probably be to reduce from the 5 main rates (0, 28, 42, 62, 47). To just 0, 28% and 47%.
I personally think the way to fix all of this is for the 47% band to start somewhere around 80k.
In fact strategic aim should probably be to reduce from the 5 main rates (0, 28, 42, 62, 47). To just 0, 28% and 47%.
Idk what to tell you. It's the equivalent of 100k taxable income. Which is the measure we almost always use when discussing tax and income.
November 21, 2025 at 11:14 AM
Idk what to tell you. It's the equivalent of 100k taxable income. Which is the measure we almost always use when discussing tax and income.
You've likely seen references to 'adjusted net income'? That's not after-tax income.
It's pre-tax income adjusted by a list of allowable adjustments, similar to adjustments you can claim in self assessment.
Most notable one is pension contributions made outside the relief at source system.
It's pre-tax income adjusted by a list of allowable adjustments, similar to adjustments you can claim in self assessment.
Most notable one is pension contributions made outside the relief at source system.
November 21, 2025 at 11:10 AM
You've likely seen references to 'adjusted net income'? That's not after-tax income.
It's pre-tax income adjusted by a list of allowable adjustments, similar to adjustments you can claim in self assessment.
Most notable one is pension contributions made outside the relief at source system.
It's pre-tax income adjusted by a list of allowable adjustments, similar to adjustments you can claim in self assessment.
Most notable one is pension contributions made outside the relief at source system.
That is what a lot of people do. You also see people dropping to 4 days a week (most notably this happens a lot in the NHS).
November 21, 2025 at 11:05 AM
That is what a lot of people do. You also see people dropping to 4 days a week (most notably this happens a lot in the NHS).
Fun chart on the topic taken from taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/11/12/t...
November 21, 2025 at 10:56 AM
Fun chart on the topic taken from taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/11/12/t...
If you are recieving childcare subsidies, which you lose entirely at 100k, and then only receive 38p in the pound marginal, it takes a lot of pounds to make it back.
There is a similar situation at 50k with child benefit, but less pronounced because child benefit is phased out up to 60k.
There is a similar situation at 50k with child benefit, but less pronounced because child benefit is phased out up to 60k.
November 21, 2025 at 10:48 AM
If you are recieving childcare subsidies, which you lose entirely at 100k, and then only receive 38p in the pound marginal, it takes a lot of pounds to make it back.
There is a similar situation at 50k with child benefit, but less pronounced because child benefit is phased out up to 60k.
There is a similar situation at 50k with child benefit, but less pronounced because child benefit is phased out up to 60k.
No, but it is how tax bands work in combination with the removal of childcare subsidies.
November 21, 2025 at 10:44 AM
No, but it is how tax bands work in combination with the removal of childcare subsidies.
It's not so much the number of brackets that creates the marginal rate problem in the UK, as having either childcare subsidies withdrawn or in the case of the 62% rate in the UK, having a tax bracket that retrospectively changes other tax brackets (!).
November 21, 2025 at 10:38 AM
It's not so much the number of brackets that creates the marginal rate problem in the UK, as having either childcare subsidies withdrawn or in the case of the 62% rate in the UK, having a tax bracket that retrospectively changes other tax brackets (!).
Ok, but if it's a tiny minority issue can we all stop pretending that more taxes on earned income in that cohort can pay for everything.
November 21, 2025 at 10:25 AM
Ok, but if it's a tiny minority issue can we all stop pretending that more taxes on earned income in that cohort can pay for everything.
Depends what you mean by "the rich".
Noone has worked out a sensible way to tax asset wealth or even unearned income.
But earned income taxation has already reached the levels where almost nobody with kids should accept a salary over 100k unless they can jump all the way to 150k.
Noone has worked out a sensible way to tax asset wealth or even unearned income.
But earned income taxation has already reached the levels where almost nobody with kids should accept a salary over 100k unless they can jump all the way to 150k.
November 21, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Depends what you mean by "the rich".
Noone has worked out a sensible way to tax asset wealth or even unearned income.
But earned income taxation has already reached the levels where almost nobody with kids should accept a salary over 100k unless they can jump all the way to 150k.
Noone has worked out a sensible way to tax asset wealth or even unearned income.
But earned income taxation has already reached the levels where almost nobody with kids should accept a salary over 100k unless they can jump all the way to 150k.
Oh they all know it is the wrong way to do it.
The problem is they have excellent tools for attacking anyone who tries to make a positive change.
And both parties see it as a greater duty to win power than to argue for sound policy.
The problem is they have excellent tools for attacking anyone who tries to make a positive change.
And both parties see it as a greater duty to win power than to argue for sound policy.
November 21, 2025 at 10:11 AM
Oh they all know it is the wrong way to do it.
The problem is they have excellent tools for attacking anyone who tries to make a positive change.
And both parties see it as a greater duty to win power than to argue for sound policy.
The problem is they have excellent tools for attacking anyone who tries to make a positive change.
And both parties see it as a greater duty to win power than to argue for sound policy.
You are right on marginal rates, but in this context a better comparison is overall effective tax rate.
Which on that salary appears to be 19% in the UK and between 14% and 22% in the US (depending on the state).
Which on that salary appears to be 19% in the UK and between 14% and 22% in the US (depending on the state).
November 21, 2025 at 10:07 AM
You are right on marginal rates, but in this context a better comparison is overall effective tax rate.
Which on that salary appears to be 19% in the UK and between 14% and 22% in the US (depending on the state).
Which on that salary appears to be 19% in the UK and between 14% and 22% in the US (depending on the state).
It's ok, the last time we tried valuing every home in the UK for tax purposes was a roaring success and created an entirely fair and reliable set of valuations that will definitely be updated regularly.
November 20, 2025 at 2:05 PM
It's ok, the last time we tried valuing every home in the UK for tax purposes was a roaring success and created an entirely fair and reliable set of valuations that will definitely be updated regularly.
I'm fascinated by how people think that houses 'worth' over 1/2/3 million but have not yet been sold for that amount, could be identified and taxed on a timescale relevant to a current fiscal crisis.
Sure, they could do it... but its a lot of admin to raise a billion a year in five years' time.
Sure, they could do it... but its a lot of admin to raise a billion a year in five years' time.
November 20, 2025 at 11:08 AM
I'm fascinated by how people think that houses 'worth' over 1/2/3 million but have not yet been sold for that amount, could be identified and taxed on a timescale relevant to a current fiscal crisis.
Sure, they could do it... but its a lot of admin to raise a billion a year in five years' time.
Sure, they could do it... but its a lot of admin to raise a billion a year in five years' time.
Incidentally, the fallacy that power (or legitimacy) is proportional to number of MPs is a big part of why I'm sceptical anyone can predict whether switching to PR would even help.
November 17, 2025 at 11:33 PM
Incidentally, the fallacy that power (or legitimacy) is proportional to number of MPs is a big part of why I'm sceptical anyone can predict whether switching to PR would even help.
Number of MPs doesn't matter in the slightest when the government has an overall majority.
The reason you prefer all party support has nothing to do with getting it through. It's the legitimacy of the outcome. Broad support means the government doesn't have to waste comms bandwidth on it.
The reason you prefer all party support has nothing to do with getting it through. It's the legitimacy of the outcome. Broad support means the government doesn't have to waste comms bandwidth on it.
November 17, 2025 at 11:30 PM
Number of MPs doesn't matter in the slightest when the government has an overall majority.
The reason you prefer all party support has nothing to do with getting it through. It's the legitimacy of the outcome. Broad support means the government doesn't have to waste comms bandwidth on it.
The reason you prefer all party support has nothing to do with getting it through. It's the legitimacy of the outcome. Broad support means the government doesn't have to waste comms bandwidth on it.
Plus if you base it on an obviously disingenuous argument you further legitimise both the lazy reflexive arguments against you.
Why should anyone else bother to challenge the woolly thinking liberal or reactionary mail opinion writer if the minister can't be bothered?
Why should anyone else bother to challenge the woolly thinking liberal or reactionary mail opinion writer if the minister can't be bothered?
November 17, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Plus if you base it on an obviously disingenuous argument you further legitimise both the lazy reflexive arguments against you.
Why should anyone else bother to challenge the woolly thinking liberal or reactionary mail opinion writer if the minister can't be bothered?
Why should anyone else bother to challenge the woolly thinking liberal or reactionary mail opinion writer if the minister can't be bothered?