If you are a capitalist, you should be pro-acquisition (i.e. of smaller firms) and anti-merger (for larger firms), because mergers are a form of crony capitalism that leads to reduced product quality and market dysfunction.
First, merging firms reduce the number of products they sell, with the effects materializing one year after the M&A and accelerating over the next several years.
Second, merging firms tend to drop and add products at the periphery of their joint product portfolio.
Third, the net effect is an increase in the similarity among the products that firms offer following a merger or acquisition.
This finding has been consistently true since people have started measuring merger outcomes, "we find that each merger is associated with a quality decrease (increase) in markets where the merging firms had (had no) pre-merger competition with each other, and the quality change can have a U-shaped relationship with pre-merger competition intensity. Consumer gains/losses associated with quality changes, which we monetize, are substantial " – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01677...
It is doubtful that merging two companies would have improved the EU's capability to compete with Chinese state operators. On the other hand, lowering the capital threshold to create a new entrant would definitely improve the EU's competitive position and capabilities, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=cele...
Even acquisitions can be problematic for competition. They often seem to be done for the purpose of gaining/protecting market share, with the acquired product getting dropped soon after.
I think most capitalists aren't pro or anti acquisition, for the simple fact that they don't believe they have the right to tell two people (or two groups of people) that they aren't allowed to associate with each other.
But if you're more consequentialist, you might take it on a case-by-case basis.
I have had the privilege of having spent time with NASA's former Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Green, and hearing him call me a friend. (In case you ever read this, thank you for everything Jim! You'll always be our space grandpa <3)
The Office of the Chief Scientist does more than just weigh in. The Planetary Society had been trying for 25+ years to put a mic on Mars. We'd sent cameras to mars, but we'd never sent a mic. It was a combination of denials ("there's no real scientific purpose" was the pushback) and bad luck (the first mission in 1999 crashed so did another - more here, https://www.planetary.org/sci-tech/mars-microphones ).
We finally got a microphone on Mars in 2021 thanks (in part) to the Dr. Jim Green. At the time, he was the head of NASA's Planetary Science Division, and along with his colleagues, he put his weight behind the payload and helped get it past the bureaucracy. His push wasn't the only push. A LOT of people worked on it, but it was an important one.
He is also the reason why NASA got into Planetary Defense. He also pushed for the NEO Observations Program. I remember talking to him about this a few years ago. IIRC, he pushed for the creation of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO) to make an explicit Planetary Defense team within NASA.
Every large organisation, every bureaucracy needs someone like Jim to get interesting ideas across the finish line.
Jim consistently did that across his career, and the office of Chief Scientist give him the ability to seriously advocate for "crazy stuff" (not his words) like Martian life and terraforming.
His successor is much the same. I think this closure is a net loss for humanity.
Yes! Mars has enough of an atmosphere for sound to propagate. And sound is incredibly information rich. With sound alone, they're now able to diagnose the state of the rover, extract incredible amounts of information about the martian environment and a bunch of other stuff (see below).
It's kinda like all those clever hacks that use audio to figure out keystrokes.
> the study of sound associated with laser impacts on Martian rocks to better
understand their mechanical properties, the improvement of our knowledge of atmospheric
phenomena at the surface of Mars such as atmospheric turbulence, convective vortices, dust
lifting processes and wind interactions with the rover itself. The microphone also helps our
understanding of the sound signature of the different movements of the rover: operations
of the robotic arm and the mast, driving on the rough surface of Mars, monitoring of the
pumps, etc
There were some scientists who believed that the recordings would be useless. A waste of payload space. The experiment had to be done to demonstrate, with data, just how versatile audio can be.
There's only one The Jim Green, but we need more Jim Greens in the world.
Then what stops this "counter-measure" from "working?" Could they not just "flash with a different ROM or something" to allow the part to work normally?
I genuinely doubt that the level of theft ever rose to a large enough margin, if it did, Apple would have pulled out of China.
For reference, Apple employs ex-NSA, CIA, TLA professionals to solve this exact problem with a near endless budget and 0 oversight and accountability.
> I genuinely doubt that the level of theft ever rose to a large enough margin, if it did, Apple would have pulled out of China.
There was a point where the black market in China was making more on Apple products than Apple itself. They initially tried to have stricter warranty conditions in China as a fix, but state media decided this was an affront to the country: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2271627/apple-clarifies-wa...
Hence, the technical fix.
Why pull out when you can apply a technical fix and retain both access to the biggest consumer electronics market in the world and maintain the good graces of the country that manufactures almost all your products?
Those are all fictional examples. But in 1963, that barrier was breached for real. Taking a sledgehammer to a wall in his basement, a man in the Turkish town of Derinkuyu got more home improvement than he bargained for. Behind the wall, he found a tunnel. And that led to more tunnels, eventually connecting a multitude of halls and chambers. It was a huge underground complex, abandoned by its inhabitants and undiscovered until that fateful swing of the hammer.
The anonymous Turk—no report mentions his name—had found a vast subterranean city, up to 18 stories and 280 feet (76 meters) deep and large enough to house 20,000 people. Who built it, and why? When was it abandoned, and by whom? History and geology provide some answers.
When commenting on HN, it is good form to read the article before commenting.
Presumably it was discovered before 1963 by whoever built this man’s basement and walled it off. You have to wonder what other great findings of history were also just shrugged at and passed over without mention.
One of these seems like the solution to the other.
> as long as those people leaving are straight, white males, or their families, they're being told "good riddance" regardless of the brain drain and loss of tax income
Having UK work experience and having talked to thousands of british folks over a decade, I find this hard to believe.
I started working with folks from the UK right at the start when social media really took off, and I personally think that what ails the UK is the same as what ails the world. Too much social media.
The UK has always been an empire in decline, but the wheels didn't come off until everyone became glued to feeds. It's Garbage In, Garbage Out. If your view of reality is driven by stuff that you see online, it's a distorted lens which then leads to distorted decision making that then leads to authoritarian creep.
IMO, the wheels fell off decades before I was born.
The peak of the empire was around WW1, where the victory was immediately followed by Irish home rule, and Churchill(!) putting the UK military into austerity to save money, which is how it came to be that evacuating from Dunkirk involved a lot of civilian ships, amongst other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Year_Rule
I'm not sure the people of the UK have yet fully internalised this decline, given the things said and written during the Brexit process. Perhaps social media really did make it all worse, but it's been authoritarian, chauvinistic (both internationally with imperialism and domestically via the aristocracy), and theocratic, ever since Harold Godwinson may or may not have taken an arrow to the eyeball.
That happened a long time ago, the realization was the 70s.
Thatcher reversed the feeling by selling off the nation to rentiers and foreigners in the 80s, we rode that money in the 90s, and the wheels came off in 2008.
Here's some Farage quotes, so you can see that there is no contradiction between the comment you were replying to (him saying it was a disaster is compatible with all this) and him still being a leaver:
“I don’t think that for a moment,” Mr Farage replied when he was asked if the UK would have been better off staying in the EU, the world’s largest single market area. “But what I do think is we haven’t actually benefitted from Brexit economically, what we could have done.”
“I mean, what Brexit’s proved, I’m afraid, is that our politicians are about as useless as the commissioners in Brussels were,” he added. “We’ve mismanaged this totally, and if you look at simple things…such as takeovers, such as corporation tax, we are driving business away from our country.
“Arguably, now we’re back in control, we’re regulating our own businesses even more than they were as EU members. Brexit has failed.”
Why do people vote for populists that inevitably will just do the bidding of the rich and powerful? That man is such a disgustingly clear example.
The same thing is true in Sweden. People vote for the party that blames the immigrants and then goes on to rule with the liberal conservative part. They all know that during the time they claim is the downfall of Sweden, we have more than one third of state tax income and had the worst privatisation of schools worldwide,
. Yet the problems with schools and healthcare is immigration.
It's not "blaming the immigrants"--that is such a gross oversimplification and distraction. No, the immigrants were pawns, and the predictable outcomes caused by having too many immigrants, as well as those who profited off of that situation--they are ones that the anger is directed towards. A lot of countries, the US included, were on a sustainable path, and then BOOM, the influx of illiterate people, totally dependent on government handouts threw a wrench into everything. Our schools are ruined. Our neighborhoods are ruined. Prices of necessities are through the roof. Healthcare and insurance, literally everything is pricing the middle class out of existence. Yet somehow it is "wrong" to assign blame! The immigrants are merely a symptom of a vast betrayal.
That may be the perception, but it's still not how it happened.
All of the currently-rich nations had a multi-generational baby boom*, long enough for their systems to assume and become dependent on that population growth.
* babies being the most extreme example of "influx of illiterate people, totally dependent on government handouts", though people only objected to them in the UK when I was a kid when it was single mothers producing them
Families started to have fewer kids, but the systems still presumed and needed more people to avoid stagnation. Japan chose stagnation instead of welcoming as many immigrants as it needed, and "the lost decade" became a plural: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades
> Healthcare and insurance, literally everything is pricing the middle class out of existence.
I assume from this that you're American? That's basically just America that has this problem. Healthcare and health insurance is fine in most other developed (and developing) nations, even e.g. here in Germany in those few years where it took on around a million asylum seekers.
Influx of illiterate people, sure. But then it is an even worse thing to cut taxes and cutting the budget for SFI (Swedish for immigrants).
The school results are worse. Even here the claim is that it is the immigrants' fault. The privatisation of the school system in sweden has led to increased segregation of the school system. Private schools can be found in areas where they get "easy students". Yet they fail to deliver any better results than public schools. Which is amazingly dumb. The state pays private schools (they are open for anyone and have no tuition fees). The schools can then let less money go to tuition and more to the share holders/owners, while being able to claim that they are just as good as schools with all the tough students. By all measurements they should be much better. It is such an enormous failure.
And who do we blame? Immigrants.
And social mobility is going downwards. Not nearly as low in the US, but I want to think that we at least still believe in the value of hard work.
People don’t vote for populists by accident, votes for populists are a symptom of elite failure to build a society that works for everyone while writing their columns, appearing on their panels, or staffing their NGOs. There's a whole class of politicians in Britain who treats politics as a posture, not a practice - and believes people are too stupid to see through it.
> There's a whole class of politicians in Britain who treats politics as a posture, not a practice - and believes people are too stupid to see through it.
IMO, many of the UK politicians themselves don't realise how out of touch they are, both with the people and with the systematic reality of the world in which they exist. (Thinking back to David Davis on Brexit, saying they had a good idea what Czechoslovakia wanted from negotiations, despite it having ceased to exist in 1992).
I don’t see any change coming until politicians stop seeing public opinion as something to be managed and placated. The lesson taken from Truss seems to have been broadly to never try anything bold again to fix the economy.
"People" is a collective, "Farage" is one person. For people collectively to change their behaviour does not require 100% of the individuals to also change their behaviour. Not even when the singular person is also calling the thing a failure.
Not sure why this was downvoted, maybe the use of "foreigners" is a bit loaded, but this is basically it.
Every inch of our economy is now owned by some faceless fund. All serious capital generated in the country is extracted out into the pockets of fund managers and Californian pensioners.
We're screwed until we can stem the outflow. I always thought taxing money leaving the country might be interesting way to approach the problem.
It’s true that too much of the U.K. is a piggy bank for those who don’t live there, but that is true of much of the West now.
> taxing money leaving the country might be interesting way to approach the problem.
This would end very poorly because what the U.K. sorely needs is investment (to create new productive capacity). For example, Americans invested huge sums in North Sea oil and created an entire industry (before we destroyed it). Conversely, if you force people to keep wealth in the country then you just make things more expensive: they will bid up the price of property and the like. Nothing is added to the UK’s real economy by increasing the number of pounds flowing around in it - it’s only helpful if it’s invested. So what you actually want is tax breaks for foreign investment, but with some kind of ownership cap.
The problem is that the investment in this day and age is entirely extractive. Strip the assets, do minimal infra, and jack up the prices. Water here is a classic example. Investors want their returns, and the best way to get it is by rent-seeking and minimal outlay. I'd go so far to argue that "investment" is the problem.
There's been enough in the way of tax breaks and "derisking". A huge part of the problem with our public finances is being on the hook for some very ill-advised "investments".
The money going out exceeds the money going in, because that's what an investment is. An opportunity to make money.
What you are describing, from the POV of the British firm, is ownership, not investment. Water is a classic example of failure because there was no shareholder capital invested - exactly my point. We don’t talk about all the successful investments because they’re doing just fine.
What the UK desperately needs is actual shareholder capital actually being invested into British companies, so that they can create new wealth. They are welcome to take a share of the wealth they create! Everybody wins!
Can we talk about the successful investments then?
What I see is every national asset, every successful company, and increasingly land and housing sold to (typically overseas) capital, with the proceeds sucked offshore.
Whether it's new housing in London, ARM, the water, the electricity, most products and most supermarkets: the beneficial owner is outside the country, being largely taxed outside the country, and spending their money outside the country.
We're discussing this in the context of a deeply dysfunctional Britain. If the "wealth creation" route were in any way effective, we'd be in a very different place right now. There's been concensus among pretty much every party in my lifetime around supporting "growth", "investment", number go up. It's clearly not working for most of us. Everyone but a select few in this country is living on the edge.
I personally see a major component of our malaise as the rentierism practiced by largely foreign interests throughout our economy. Alternative explanations are welcome, but it's hard to see how we'd be worse off without the vampire squid up each and every orifice.
Had we never received foreign investments to begin with we would certainly be worse off, as indeed we were in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
> There's been consensus among pretty much every party in my lifetime around supporting "growth", "investment", number go up.
Yes most U.K. governments have talked about fine talk but other than Thatcher, failed to actually deliver on securing enough investment. It’s not that the investments are bad, it’s that they have been decreasing for 25 years:
It’s funny that you mention ARM because it was created under Thatcher back when the U.K. was willing to start businesses. Yes it should never have been sold.
The response of "we cannot stop water companies dumping raw sewage into our rivers and lakes because it might impact profits of their Saudi Arabia investment funds" is really all we need to know about the issues. It's sickening.
This is not true. There is no Saudi ownership of Thames Water. 90% or so is owned by Australian, European, and Canadian pension funds. Specifically it was the Macquarie Group (Australian) that loaded it up with debt and pushed it off a cliff.
>I always thought taxing money leaving the country might be interesting way to approach the problem.
Even China with extreme capital controls and pervasive surveillance can't stop money leaving the country. Unless the UK was willing to go fully authoritarian and ban its citizens from spending money overseas, and ban crypto (and build all the internet firewall/DPI infrastructure that doing so would require), it wouldn't stand a chance. And attempting to do so would destroy the value of the pound, because nobody with any options would want to hold a currency that could only be spent in the UK.
Surely you see the difference between ordinary citizens buying online and spending money abroad while on holiday and big foreign companies taking their billions of profits out of the country?
> I always thought taxing money leaving the country might be interesting way to approach the problem.
Capital controls. By the time they are applied it's always too little, too late, and they only ever apply to the plebs -- the wealthy always have ways to move money out (and back in, later -much later-, if it becomes necessary or advantageous). Always too little too late because -I suspect- capital controls don't really work -- not against the wealthy.
Everyone needs a scapegoat. Why not mention Carter and the near double-digit inflation Reagan faced at the beginning of his admistration and the fact that it was nearly half by the end of it?
In the 90s, it brought us some of the best economic times we will ever see.
You can only do the financialization trick a few times and each time it is more damaging than the last. The end comes when it is no longer possible to outrun the delayed negative consequences. There is an attribution problem, like the straw that let broke the camels back, but for the final straw the back may not have broken, but responsibility lies with the weight in its totality.
Oh hang the economy. I don't care about money, I care about people. I care about the incalculable number of folks who have suffered and died from the politics of austerity, in my country and the UK. I care about government services that no longer function because of this case of brain worms that tells people when a government office doesn't work, the solution is to cut it's funding because that's definitely going to help. I care about the alienation of everyone from everyone and everything, all of us trussed up in our little homes, completely disconnected from the effects we have on our communities because of this libertarian fantasy of you being and island and accountable to nothing and no one but your own piddly, small notion of what moves you forwards.
I'll repeat what the other comment said, since it seems like you were sick for most of your macroeconomics class; you are currently living through the consequences of fictionalization. We did try what you're suggesting, both in America and the UK, and the post-industrial financier economics has the exact same consequences every time.
America is a precise model for what the UK will look like if it shirks liberalization. Here in the US, we've lost almost all of our postwar industrial capacity. We can't ship cost-competitive smartphones or electric vehicles without importing parts from China. We can't mass-produce the things we consume or even export enough to keep out of a trade deficit. Our biggest exports are software services reviled the world over for being surveillance systems installed and moderated by America's government. Our businesses are no longer seen as stable blue-chip stocks, but moonshots and gambling opportunities.
If you actually knew the consequences of a financier economy then you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy.
> it's been authoritarian, chauvinistic (both internationally with imperialism and domestically via the aristocracy), and theocratic, ever since Harold Godwinson
This. The UK was a band of feudal kingdoms that somehow managed to create an overseas empire. The empire is now gone, and the feudal kingdom is struggling to transform itself into a modern nation.
Our politics does have some good parts. The political system we have is reasonably good. We have many political parties due to the proportional representation system. A single party is also unlikely to get a majority in parliament on their own, so parties with different backgrounds will have to work together to form a functioning government.
We do suffer from many political parties not willing to cause short term pain to improve long term outcomes. There are a few urgent issues going on in politics at the moment. Stuff where a decision needs to be made now and action should be taken. But the political parties do not want to make those decisions because they would inflict short term pain to some voters but would also improve the long term quality of life and economics of the Netherlands.
The worst part is that those issues have been known for a long time, but decisions were postponed over and over again because politicians didn't want to make the decision. Making the issues worse and more urgent over time.
At the same time populism is clearly on the rise in the Netherlands. A famous thing happening in a debate before the previous elections was a populist saying "But this woman cannot wait for the costs to be decreased, she needs it now." about decreasing a specific part of healthcare costs for citizens. Of course when the same populist became the biggest party during the elections, they never introduced anything to decrease that part of the healthcare costs.
>Of course when the same populist became the biggest party during the elections, they never introduced anything to decrease that part of the healthcare costs.
Paradise is maybe a bit much. I’m German and from close to the border. Not right across but close enough that I visit a lot and my city is overran by Dutch people every Christmas.
On average as a tourist, the Netherlands is straight up just a better version of Germany. However a friend of mine recently moved. She’s from India, moved to Germany and then fell in love with a Durch man she ultimately married. In the process of moving she of course also switched into the Dutch health care system and that I think is legit worse than the German one but I don’t know how much that might be a symptom of a greater issue in the Netherlands.
The difference is essentially that the Dutch health care system tries to be profitable which is nice but then results in procedures not being covered by health insurance that a German doctor would find essential. Specifically preventative care and child birth related stuff where very problematic for her.
But otherwise I think the Netherlands takes a very practical approach to society. Is it annoying for cars to navigate Dutch cities? Yes but also it’s the only country where you can basically always take a bicycle anywhere and be safe. Is 100km/h on the highway annoying? Yes but it’s also the most relaxing drive in heavy traffic I can imagine. I think in a quite literal sense, i think the Dutch are less conservative than we are. The way things were done matters less which results in people seeing the benefits of change much more. Like everything car related. Youd start a riot in germany just doing parking like the Dutch do.
While the Dutch healthcare system has challenges I would say it's working surprisingly well give the demographic trends and budgetary constraints. In general statistics do seem to back this up.
There's a strong focus on streamlining and reducing "unnecessary" care (including a lot of preventative care that is accessible in other countries) but without doing that now the whole system will not be affordable in 20 - 30 years.
Is that the optimal approach? I'm not sure, taking a patient wishes into account and doing (some) preventative care does probably have a positive ROI. Having said that I can see both sides of the coin but as a younger person I'm glad they're taken future demands into account.
The uk is a lot of things, but theocratic really isn’t one of them. If you’re referring to the House of Lords then you don’t really understand our government. The general population is as atheist as anywhere outside of Scandi countries.
> The general population is as atheist as anywhere outside of Scandi countries.
I appreciate the proximity of the two sentences made it unclear, but the general population isn't what I'm critical of in this case. I briefly had an Iranian project manager, that nation is almost as high as you can get on the theocracy scale (IIRC it would be beaten by Afghanistan), but he absolutely was not and had tattoos of video game characters.
Also, I should say that the use of "theocracy" in the modern sense is somewhat looser than the historical, and therefore ask if we're actually disagreeing? Certainly I don't mean in the sense of the deification of the Pharaohs.
Re the rest:
Given my focus is the rulers and not the people, I think the Lords Spiritual remain relevant (the attempt to replace the HoL with an elected one being promised by the HoC in 1911, still waiting).
Likewise that the head of state is also the head of the national church and there being a religious requirement for being crowned monarch, and that there is no desire to reform away the monarchy as an institution, likewise the Establishment nature of the CoE, making this the only non-meta conversation I've ever had where I can legitimately use the longest (recognised, non-systematic) word in the English language by saying that the UK political system is one of antidisestablishmentarianism.
I don't think I'd count the coins, even though this is about the ruling classes who are much more likely than anyone else to speak Latin and thus recognise the abbreviation printed on them. "FID DEF" has an ironic history, but so does the much easier to read "In God We Trust" and I'm not (yet) going to describe the USA in this way.
Aside from all of that, there's also the requirement of schools that:
All maintained schools must provide religious education and daily collective worship for all registered pupils and promote their spiritual, moral and cultural development.
…
Collective worship in county schools and equivalent grant-maintained schools must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character, though not distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.
Even in the loosest sense, I struggle to see how the uk is any more theocratic than any other European country. The lords spiritual have minimal practical influence over policy. And while I’m a republican, I don’t think the monarch has much influence over public policy. I guess you could argue they have soft power but that seems like it might also be true of religious leaders in any country.
Is Israel a theocracy in your view?
The more I study that time period, the more I realize how incredibly effed up every decision that those leaders made. They were desperate, I get it, but damn. And then most of the Nazi scum escaped and did their shadowy best to influence world history for many more decades!
> Having UK work experience and having talked to thousands of british folks over a decade, I find this hard to believe
I only have to look as far as my own wallet to see the effects. I'm being taxed to the eyeballs while there is a glass ceiling preventing me taking any more pay home without a major jump which just isn't coming due to stupid tax rules keeping the working class from bumping into the middle class.
I see mine and my family's living standards drop only to be told by the news that I'm a likely target for more tax hikes, and there's just no room to tax me more while my bills have also gone up significantly, and something will have to give. If it gets to the point where I can't pay my bills despite being a "high earner" I'll have to start considering whether I leave with my family, and where to.
I'm not exactly the milky bar kid, but I imagine beyond my friends and family, I imagine the consensus would be very much the same, yet there goes two "successful" professionals and the children we were raising probably to be high earning professionals too.
I don't do social media, but I do keep on top of the news from all outlets, I try to look beyond the biases and form an opinion on a combination of sources.
I left in 2010 and the consensus is very much the same among my friends, or at least some of them anyway.
I’m no longer eligible to have an opinion UK or local conversations. “how would you know”, “the city’s changed a lot since you left”, “why are people who chose to leave so interested in X”, statements specific to ex-pats.
For those from outside the UK, ex-pat (expatriate) as a singular term is almost always derogatory regardless of context or publisher.
I believe the issue people have with the term ex-pat is that it sounds like a fart-sniffing variation of "migrant" (or the derivatives "emigrant" or "immigrant").
It's kind of wild how people can't accept that anyone would want to leave the UK, plenty of people come here, they're leaving other places, so this must be the best place in the world.
If you don't like it you must be foreign; I'm not, I was born and raised in England to British parents. Nowhere did I say I was even planning to leave, I merely suggested that if things got worse I might have to consider it, and I was jumped on for that.
Things ARE getting worse, but I'm not at that point yet, maybe we'll have a miraculous turn around and our public services will improve and our economy will grow, I'm not even asking for it to be sunny for 3 months of the year, but if they don't, am I just supposed to sit here on a sinking ship with my children next to me?
And let's be real, it's not even about me at this point, it's about what is and what will be for my children, I've worked hard to give them a better life than I had as a kid, and I'll be damned if I don't do it.
That is not how marginal tax rates work. Each income band is taxed at the rate for that band. It’s why it’s called “marginal” - because the rate change happens at the margin between brackets.
You are taxed 0% on your first £12571. You are taxed 20% on your next £37669, or, £7359.80 on £50270 of income. If you then earned one more pound, or £50271, you would owe £0.40 (40%) on that one additional pound only, for a total of £7361.20. There is no income stage where earning more money has you taking home less.
> There is no income stage where earning more money has you taking home less
If you go from £99,999 to £100,000 and have pre-school aged children, you lose £2000 in tax-free childcare per child. If you have 2 children, that extra penny cost you £4000, 3 children, £6000, you take home less, fact.
Combined with the 60% marginal rate, you now have to get to £110,000 just earn the same you did at £99,999 and then there's the side point that a couple can earn £99,999 each, or £198,999.98 and still benefit from it while any single parent who hits £100,000 loses it completely, so a single parent high earner loses out vs a couple. I'm not a single parent but that doesn't seem reasonable to me.
EDIT: and that person who hit £100,000 has the extra burden of having to file a tax return from now on simply because they hit an arbitrary number, and despite being on PAYE, though perhaps some people love doing tax returns, so not necessarily a negative point.
Also at £100k you start to lose your tax-free personal allowance. The commitment of successive governments to avoid raising taxes on "ordinary working people" has created a bizarrely inconsistent tax regime for above-average earners, where people earning £65k could end up paying a much higher marginal rate than people earning £165k.
Yes, once you go from 99,999 to 100,000 you lose 2000 per pre-school aged child you have and have to file your own tax returns for the privilege despite being PAYE.
Annoying that those are, it’s probably more accurate to say you don’t qualify for benefits when you earn considerably more than the median wage (£38k).
Also, if you’re paying a decent amount in to your pension your effective salary is lowered and won’t hit that child benefit threshold until your salary exceeds £60k or more, and you still get to keep all of that money.
Tax free childcare is already extremely lacking in my opinion, if you want professionals to work, it shouldn't be extortionate to have your children in nursery, and costing you 2000 per child per year for one parent earning 100,000 when two parents can earn 99,999 each is also ridiculous.
The real kicker is the 99,999->100,000 trap where you lose all tax free childcare care allowance, £2000 per year per child, it's assessed quarterly, and if you exceed it by a single penny, not only do you lose it, they also demand immediate repayment of all childcare allowance so far that year.
>>they also demand immediate repayment of all childcare allowance so far that year.
So this might or might not be in line with official guidance but I was exactly in this situation and I expected to earn around £99k last tax year then I was given an unexpected £4k bonus in my march salary, and I wasn't told about it until it was in my account already so it was too late to put it into pension. I asked HMRC about it and they said as long as I was being truthful at every quarterly questionnaire where they ask if you expect to make over £100k and I told them the situation changed as soon as I became aware of it I don't have to pay anything back for the free childcare hours. I asked my accountant and she said since I have it in writing it should be fine(but HMRC can always change their mind so who the hell knows).
Compare that to the insane situation of the benefit for carers where people are being asked to repay benefits going back years if they went over the threshold by a single pound - I imagine HMRC is being incentivieed to go after benefit takers more than other areas like childcare hours, for various more or less political reasons.
That sounds extraordinarily linient of them, but I suspect as you say, it's political.
I take it you lost your allowance for the rest of the year due to the bonus?
Luckily for me the childcare tax people contacted me about it the first time it could have become an issue because I received a bonus at the start of a tax year, so I adjusted my pension contributions for the rest of the year lowering my take home. By this point though I'd already been taxed that marginal 60% thanks to the bonus being paid to me, like yourself without being notified.
Don't quote me but I don't think this is quite true if you take tax credits and other "benefits" into account - especially when it comes to child support.
Moreover they generally make the argument, have marginal tax rates explained and then rapidly go off looking for some specific welfare policy where this is sort of true.
Because if they knew about the welfare policy before they started typing, they would've actually mentioned it then - it's a specific problem, with several obvious solutions (i.e. don't means test at all or taper off more gently) unrelated to the concept of tax brackets (and potentially not related to the actual bracket index values themselves.
The problem isn't the percentage, it's that there are tax traps where earning a single penny more end up in you taking home thousands less, then you hit a marginal tax bands of 60%+, and suddenly you have to earn tens of thousands more just to break even.
They're well known an documented, but I'm sure you know that already.
Can you provide an example for others? I know I often hear this complaint here in Canada about entering a new tax bracket, but the reality is that only the money earned above the bracket's lower bound is taxed at that higher rate (if the bracket is $10k and you make $10,001, only that $1 is taxed at that higher brackets rate), and so I'm wondering what the UK is doing differently.
Edit: Ah, there's a baseline personal deduction (12.5k) that disappears between 100-125k, meaning, for that narrow band, every dollar earned in that range has a higher effective tax rate due to that deduction slowly disappearing. It's still progressive, so you don't suddenly start paying 60% tax on everything.
See another comment of mine that also shows how going from 99,999 to 100,000 also costs you 2000 for each pre-school aged child you have per year meaning you actually earn thousands less, and to top it off, you now also have to do your own tax returns because you hit 100,000 despite being PAYE.
EDIT: it's interesting that anyone genuinely asking and trying to understand is getting downvoted as opposed to anyone who just disagrees with me.
Having to do your own tax returns is funny to hear as a North American, we always have to do them.
I struggle with the child tax credits. If I'm childless and move from 99,999 to 100,000 it doesn't change my situation at all. I don't think we can view that in the same light - it's a tax credit benefit, but it's not just a matter of earnings. The goal is to support lower income families, so the line has to be drawn somewhere, and whether it's gradual or not someone is still going to complain about it going away.
> I struggle with the child tax credits. If I'm childless and move from 99,999 to 100,000 it doesn't change my situation at all. I don't think we can view that in the same light - it's a tax credit benefit, but it's not just a matter of earnings. The goal is to support lower income families, so the line has to be drawn somewhere, and whether it's gradual or not someone is still going to complain about it going away.
Having it go away is less of a problem than having it go away all at once. If it was phased out over a range of incomes such that every marginal dollar of gross is still a marginal increase in net, that'd solve the problem mentioned in this thread. Key property of a tax system: the function from gross income to net income should always be monotonically increasing.
To be fair, the original topic of this thread was "tax traps", one of the most famous in the UK being a gradual decrease of benefit that was still a marginal increase in net, but it was still deemed worth complaining about.
Yeah, to some extent it's also important that the marginal tax rate should always be monotonically nondecreasing. But that's not quite as critical as the marginal tax rate never being above 100% (including all accounting for loss of credits/deductions).
It comes at a problematic point where at 100,000 you also lose your personal allowance. It means that when I received a pay rise from whatever to exactly 100,000 I lost £4000 in tax-free childcare meaning I actually earned less.
Nobody is expected not to use it if they earn below the point it is taken away, it's just an arbitrary tax on parents who earn 100,000, while at the same time a few other paper cuts are piled on.
I know Americans always do tax returns, sounds like a pita for you guys, and I believe until recently you had no choice but to use some sort of service and couldn't DIY it?
Here if you're PAYE (salaries), it's dealt with on your behalf, the tax is deducted before you're paid and you don't have to deal with it, unless you're self employed. It's not necessarily a huge issue, but it's a time cost and that has to have a price, and if you get it wrong, HMRC are notoriously hard and will demand full payment immediately, if you're lucky and they accept your "excuse" (their word), they might let you split it over 3 months.
At this point it's best to make sure you have £10,000+ in savings aside just in case.
I've not had to do a tax return yet, but I've frequently seen tax bills in the tens of thousands from family and friends because their accountant got it wrong, and holds no liability.
I don't think it's as big an issue for me people have taken from my original wording, that's fine, poor choice of words on my part perhaps, but it has certainly been blown out of proportion including some minor jabs at me and (incorrectly) at my political leanings etc. Despite this really all having nothing to do with politics or news and quite clearly as I pointed out at it's direct effect on my family finances.
As the saying goes here in England, "I'm sorry I mentioned it".
> it's just an arbitrary tax on parents who earn 100,000
This seems to be me to be a weird framing. It's a tax benefit for parents that's taken away when you hit £100k. When you hit £100k you don't face an arbitrary tax, instead you're now playing by the same rules everyone else is. You're in parity with your child-less coworker. Not disadvantaged, just no longer advantaged.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I need to give it a little more thought.
The government has been clear they want you to work harder and earn more, they also want you to have children and raise future tax payers, if you do have children either your career and earnings take a hit or you need to put them in childcare, in that case I think all child care should be tax free, they're only in there so you can work and earn and pay tax. It's typical that your wages should increase with experience but you can't un-have children, perhaps you didn't even know you'd hit that threshold when you had them, or more likey that such a threshold even exists.
If we don't think of it like that, but simply that you're no longer advantaged as you put it, the issue is that it's sudden and affects unevenly, two parents can earn £99,999.99 EACH and still receive it, but a single parent or one person in a couple earns that extra penny they're now £2000/child worse off and still have to put their children in childcare.
Of course there's an option to have or not to have children, but I'd argue that the global consensus in countries with ageing populations, like the UK, is that the government want you to work more, and for longer and have more children, so it should be fair to say that from the government perspective, having children is the expected norm.
For those in the US: the UK tax return (actually a partial return and declaration of income) takes 10 minutes. It’s all done online. There are no complicated calculations, you just declare your income, investment income, interest and other sources, minus any tax already paid. You don’t need an accountant and there are no costs for filing.
If it takes you only 10 minutes to declare all your "income, investment income, interest and other sources" then you're either lying or doing taxes wrong. It takes me more than 10 minutes just to download all the tax slips, let alone totalling them up.
I'm in the pay bracket requiring annual self assessment and 10 minutes is probably too generous, purely because you log in to your SA account and the PAYE section from your employer is already pre-filled. You don't need to look at your pay slips, HMRC already has all the info from your employer and literally all you need to do is have a cursory glance whether the numbers look right then click confirm few times and submit at the end.
Obviously very different if you're self employed or have income mostly from investments or properties, but the you have an accountant to do it for you.
No, I was talking about the amount of time it takes to fill in an high-earner income declaration in the UK, which you only need to do if you are indeed a high earner or have multiple sources of income, and it is not anywhere near as arduous as a full tax return (either in the UK or the US).
I've been doing UK self assessment tax returns every year for over 15 years.
It really does just take 10-15 mins for people that have one job (as an employee) and typical investments - savings accounts, shares, etc.
The income numbers are already there and if I want to check it's easy: my employer gives me a form with the same numbers in the same numbered boxes.
I just need to specify how much income I had from bank interest.
The tax witholding system usually works as well - the main exception being straight after starting work for the first time or changing jobs, when you can have a temporary code. In these cases I just called HMRC and told them what was going on.
The employer gives my pay numbers to HMRC and HMRC give my employer a tax code that determines how much to withhold each month.
That jump in childcare costs definitely sounds annoying but if the overall percentage isn't very high then you're not being taxed to the eyeballs.
We could imagine fixing the problem by making the childcare voucher phase out between 80k and 100k, and at 100.2k you'd get exactly the same amount as you get under the current system.
In this hypothetical would you still say taxed to the eyeballs? If so, what would your justification be?
The nuance of the situation was obviously missing from that short "emotional" statement I made, but I wasn't intending to start the argument it caused, just expressing some frustration in passing before someone jumped on my back.
With a progressive tax band, the burden is different, you're aware of it ahead of time and you set your living standards accordingly, you won't see a big sudden drop and can adjust accordingly. You can't suddenly sell your home or find a much higher paying job in the same space of time a small pay increase took you over the cliff.
For my generation, a professional that's having a family has probably focused on their career to get there, having there kids once they break some income threshold at a certain age, let's say it's 80k to fit with your numbers. You bought your home somewhere where those higher salaries are, paid a premium, higher SDLT on a small new build flat, you upsize when you have kids, buy a(n) (old) house, now overpriced due to property price jumps in the last few years, another chunk of SDLT, bills much higher, then you hit 100k as your costs have gone up significantly, that might be manageable, but you've just lost 2k per child to the tax credit trap, then the next 10k breaks even, after that you're taxed at 60% while your salary can't/won't be able to increase enough to offset that additional tax burden and your living standards have materially dropped because you got a pay rise.
I suppose the nuance I'm trying to convey is one of timing compounded by cliffs in the tax system that wouldn't become the sudden problem they are if the tax system wasn't set up the way it is.
One could argue that you could have known this, but I don't believe anyone would be seriously aware of the pitfalls until they have kids or hit a salary where you're going to be hit with a big step in tax burden.
Sure it won't affect everyone the same, but if you happen to meet those specific criteria with that specific timing, it can certainly feel like being "taxed to the eyeballs" even if that isn't the best way to put it. I'm far from the only person in that position, it's just the natural progression for some.
I hope that explains my position a bit better. I wasn't trying to say "I pay too much tax as a percentage of my income", in fact I DON'T think that, but I and others I've spoken to in this situation believe it's a tax-based ceiling on our progression and is a tax-based contribution to the growing wealth devide pushing anyone down that attempts to break into the middle class, which as a whole just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; no I'm not putting myself in those brackets before someone jumps on me, but pushing the middle down makes the rich richer and the poor poorer (sorry slight tangent at the end there).
I think some perspective is missing if you’re describing this as “pushing anyone down that attempts to break into the middle class” when the cutoff points (when the step changes occur, as you’re correct to note) come into effect at around something like the 95th percentile of UK salaries.
I don't think there's a clear consensus on what is considered middle class in this country now, for many it can be social, and other factors, I would consider it, in this context to be a certain standard of living.
Owning a home, having significant savings, holidays abroad at least once a year, sending your children to private school, etc are probably some things I'd consider markers of being in the lower middle class.
On that basis, homes are becoming harder to own, savings are being eaten up by higher cost of living, the pound is weakening and taxes are making it untenable to send your children to private school.
Maybe my idea of what being middle class is is wrong, but it can't be far off, and that's exactly the group of people who aren't going to go much further beyond that to whatever comes at the next stage, I don't know what living standards look like for people above that; multiple properties, significant portfolios, not working for a living?
I guess traditionally ‘middle class’ referred to the type of occupation (e.g. non-manual) which was typically associated with being better off.
But it’s not obvious that the standard of living associated with being better off would ever have been near the 90th, let alone 90th percentile of salaries?
Not convinced that sending children to private school would ever have been seen as a ‘lower middle class’ expectation.
But I’m also not convinced that the markers you describe are not available to someone at the 75th percentile of income, say, let alone to people at the 95th percentile. Now the luxuriousness of those markers may not be at the level marketed in glossy brochures etc but isn’t that an issue with unrealistic expectations?
I think the general point is you are presenting something as a hardship that is a quality of life unachievable for most people (even in the UK), and unthinkable for most people in the recent past, even in the West.
You come across as out of touch and entitled. You live in the future - enjoy it!
This may be slightly chicken and egg; it's the 95th percentile of salaries partly because no one wants to take a salary above that. Instead they use salary sacrifice, pensions, dividends, capital gains, leaving money in personal service company, etc. anything to avoid having a personal paper income above that threshold.
I suspect it's nowhere near the 95th percentile of earned wealth.
I don't think this hypothetical behaviour would change the 95th percentile or any percentiles below it, would it?
If the income of everybody above the 80th percentile dropped to be equal to the 81st percentile, the 80th percentile income wouldn't change the ones above would just be very closely bunched.
(Last time I checked the opposite was true and they got more spread out)
I think it would, once you put in place mechanisms to move your income down to below £100k, you can and probably should tweak them further to reduce your tax bill even further.
Perhaps my wording was the problem, and I didn't ignore your other question, I said the percentage isn't the problem, I also don't know the number, but I'm sure you do.
Perhaps it was a problem with my wording but your statement about the daily mail suggests you've entirely misunderstood me, but to be specific I'm generally left leaning and prefer broadsheets, though I currently mostly use aggregators to combine sources to find where the facts are as opposed to "cliche talking points".
I thought I was clear when I said that the effect on my wallet is where my opinion is formed, but it seems you might have missed that.
I have no problem with paying more tax as a higher earner, but I don't agree with a tax system that literally prevents me from earning a penny more and would even have me earn less unless I can find a significant jump.
You clearly have a different view on this but the facts of what I see right in front of me have little to do with talking points and consensus and everything, right now, to do with tax or the tax system.
I'm taxed too much on every penny I've earned over over £99,999 and way too much because of the privilege of having pre-school aged children, that's my opinion, agree or not.
>privilege of having pre-school aged children, that's my opinion,
Look at salary sacrifice. This give you the option of buying childcare vouchers before tax. So taking you below the 100,000. Otherwise pay more into pension and drop below the 100,000 threshold.
I wasn't aware of this, I'll take a look and see if it applies thanks.
The pension route is the way I've gone to deal with it, but it doesn't fix the issue of "my bills are going up while my income can't". I'm sure retired me will be glad for it if it makes it that far, and we don't somehow end up being taxed to the hilt on _that_ too when we eventually get there.
For other readers who don't want to go through that:
Say you earn £99,999 and get a pay rise to £100,000 and have two pre-school aged children, you lose £4000 (£2000 per child) per year, so you now earn less.
Now for the next ~£25,140 you earn you'll pay an effective tax rate of 60%, so from £99,999 you first have to hit ~£110,000 to break even, then it's ~60% tax up to £125,140, then beyond that it's 45%.
But also it's a childcare tax credit? Like you will only receive this in it's total value for maybe 4 years assuming you have two very close in age kids, and then lose it entirely 1 year later because they would both have started primary school.
And you wouldn't be receiving it at all if you didn't have children.
Like I would choose to not means test such a policy were in charge, but it's also got nothing to do with marginal tax rates - it's why liberals like me generally oppose means tested welfare policies (because it costs more to deliver and tends to deliver less).
You also don't have childcare costs once they go to school, so the loss of that outgoing makes up for the loss of the tax credit.
I'm also liberal, and I think that everyone should be given the child tax credit, if the government wants you to work, and earn, and have children (it does), the tax credit is an effective way to help everyone work harder and earn more.
The issue I've been trying to describe, is that after you've already had children, and you then hit 100k, you lose it entirely, making you 2k per child worse off, so let's say you get to 100k, and you already have two children in childcare, you lose 4k, then you get a pay rise to 110k, with the loss of the 4k and at the same time you also hit a marginal tax rate of 60%, you now earn exactly the same as you did at 100k.
If you got a with-inflation pay rise every year from 100k onward, you'd be earning less for almost all of that time until those children go to school.
Lowering the higher band threshold to 100k from 125k and not tapering the personal allowance would actually leave you better off.
I'm not familiar with the UK tax system but the usual solution is to have progressive (?) tax bands. Example:
On the part from 0 to 1000, no taxes
1001 to 10000, ten percent
10001 to 20000, twenty percent
20000 to 30000, thirty percent
30001 and more, forty percent
So if you were earning 29000 and get a raise to 31000 those 29000 are still taxed as they used to and the extra 2000 are split among the two bands around 30k.
Yes, except like many others have pointed out there are thresholds where you lose certain tax credits and benefits, so it's entirely possible to make £1 more but lose multiple thousand(for example if you're a parent and you go from making £99,999 a year to £100k a year)
You did not answer the question. You repeatedly dodged it while blaming your "wording" (?) on your failure to answer it. It's right there for all of us to see.
Now despite your previous admission, you are here telling me that you did answer it and I just didn't like the answer. The question has revealed more about you and your motives than we could have ever imagined.
> One of these seems like the solution to the other.
If the per capita spending is exceeding per capita taxation, increased immigration does not solve the problem. More people requires more spending.
> The UK has always been an empire in decline
I find this fatalistic attitude to be very unhelpful in determining good policy decisions. If you start with the assumption that the empire is in decline then it doesn’t seem as bad to add policies that contribute to decline, as long as you get some short-term win out of it.
> I started working with folks from the UK right at the start when social media really took off, and I personally think that what ails the UK is the same as what ails the world. Too much social media.
There have been a number of public scandals regarding immigrant crimes, along with subsequent anti-immigrant riots started via social media and people being sent to jail for internet posts. Social media seems to be more of accelerant for social unrest than than the cause. For me (an outsider) observing the situation, it seems to be mainly caused by immigration.
Many of the areas most upset by immigration barely see any immigrants, whilst many of the most persistent spreaders of rumours about terrible things caused by immigration to the UK don't actually live there. Of course, it isn't just social media that obsesses over immigrants in the UK (and many other places), mainstream print media and politicians are pretty obsessed with them too.
Personally, I would rate the grooming gangs scandal as one of the worse things that happened to a western nation in decades. It literally made me sick to stomach when I read the details. I think the obsession is somewhat justified.
News coverage of child grooming convictions in the month of their conviction was dominated by a different group of scumbags who were convicted of similar crimes up to a decade earlier though, which underlines my point about obsessions quite neatly
THOUSANDS of young girls were sexually exploited for YEARS and the government did nothing about it because they didn't want to appear to be racist. There is no equivalence with any of the "average" sex crimes that happen in modern advanced nations. There really is no equivalence with anything that has happened recently - it is a crime unique in its depravity.
> There really is no equivalence with anything that has happened recently - it is a crime unique in its depravity.
With no intention of downplaying the particular scandal that you're referencing, I don't think this is correct. Victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church are also usually estimated to range in the thousands, particularly e.g. in Germany
No credible account suggests the Rochdale grooming gangs' victims numbered in the thousands.
Implying that the recently -convicted gang who spent several years hosting "rape nights" targeting minors in Glasgow I've linked to was somehow less depraved than people of Pakistani descent doing the same thing in Rochdale years earlier because they weren't members of an ethnic minority does kind of underline my point.
Not just Rochdale. You forgot Rotherham, Telford, Oldham, Oxford, Derby, Bradford, Huddersfield, Keighley, Halifax, Bristol, and Newcastle.
Your second point is a hallucination on your part. Nobody is saying it's bad because they're minorities. We're saying it's especially bad because the government was implicated - they very people charged with keeping children safe sacrificed them for political reasons, by the thousands, for years, and still are. That, combined with the scale of crimes by the Pakistani and other rapists and the acceptance these crimes received in their community, form a different type of crime - a massive crime committed by authorities and a whole community over years. That's what's so especially horrifying.
You're literally doing what you're accusing me of "hallucinating" yourself, bracketing a group of crimes by the ethnicity of the perpetrators, and ignoring white British people doing exactly the same thing and also getting away with it for years, and pinning the blame on the crimes committed by ethnic minorities specifically on the "entire community"; Somehow the Glaswegian associates and neighbours of the "Beastie House" aren't tarred with the same brush, and according to the person I was replying to even the perpetrators aren't as depraved. Police and social services (not generally considered part of "the government") failed to put a stop to grooming gangs for a wide variety of reasons; yes, in the case of Rochdale specifically where there were a number of warnings that shouldn't have been ignored that made it warrant a public enquiry and elevated news coverage. Needless to say social media coverage driven by agendas tended to skip the more robustly established findings that police repeatedly didn't take victim reports seriously out of assumptions about the behaviour of working class girls staying out late at night and often failed in fulfilling basic child protection protocols in favour of the "politicians covered it up and still are" angle. Back in reality, we've had a lot of convictions, multiple public inquires and people from all political parties talk more about them than most other sex crimes put together (even including Jimmy Savile)
In any case, the wider discussion was whether the UK's current ailments and political schisms are "mainly caused by immigration", and its quite hard to logically connect even the immigration-driven controversies like Brexit, "caps on migrant numbers" and fixation on small boat crossings to crimes committed by gangs of mostly second generation British Pakistanis, mostly in the early 2000s.
There is not a government-wide conspiracy to cover up the sex crimes of white British people. That conspiracy is what people are most horrified by. I don't know how to say this any clearer.
>Somehow the Glaswegian associates and neighbours of the "Beastie House" aren't tarred with the same brush
Because this is an isolated incident, not something happening at a mass scale in that community.
You are helping mass rape continue by trying to minimize it; you are part of the problem here, right here, right now. Your kinds of thoughts and words are the support that those ongoing mass gang rape of children requires to continue. Hope you're proud of yourself; at least nobody can call you racist.
>crimes committed by gangs of mostly second generation British Pakistanis
It's hard to connect immigration to crimes by committed by ethnic immigrant gangs? Dear lord.
Look up the stats on sex crime convictions per capita by immigrant origin in various European countries.
There is not a government wide conspiracy to cover up the sex crimes of any people, least of all groups of mostly low-status ethnic minority taxi drivers in cities none of the recent governments have paid much attention to except to discuss sex crimes occurring in them and call for more public inquiries.
Although at police level, it came out yesterday that multiple officers in Rotherham were under investigation for sexually exploiting the victims themselves. Which would sound a much more likely reason why victims were ignored until they became part of wider investigations than some high-level conspiracy to empower taxi drivers to rape. I'm quite comfortable in being able to declare this is a major scandal without having to wait for the ethnicity of the police officers to be identified to decide whether it was an isolated incident or the fault of the entire community.
Only one of us is implying that some gang rape perpetrators and groomers are less of a big deal than others; it isn't me. Whether that is your intention or not, it certainly isn't helping victims get the support they needed or crimes get solved.
> It's hard to connect immigration to crimes by committed by ethnic immigrant gangs? Dear lord.
I mean, yeah, it's super hard to connect immigration routes that British Pakistanis and their ancestors didn't use at any point to crimes some of them committed.
> Look up the stats on sex crime convictions per capita by immigrant origin in various European countries.
We've got stats for sex crimes per capita for the actual UK, for convictions and for reports and for those targeting minors specifically. They certainly don't support your argument that white Britons' sex crimes against kids are "isolated incidents". Statistically, they're actually slightly overrepresented on a per capita basis, and that's after decades of large investigations into specific crimes committed in specific communities.
You're pointing to another rape case(ironic there's so many of them) but the other one was the OG that exposed the British government being involved in the cover up of migrant crimes to not seem racist, where the British citizens talking about the Muslim rape gangs were the ones being persecuted instead of the gangs themselves.
You can't make this shit up. It was a betrayal of the British people of epic proportions, whose trust in their leader was lost forever, because if they're willing to sweep that under the rug to protect their image, what else have they been covering up. Then the post office workers comes up.
The difference between social media and traditional media is, roughly speaking, the absence of a centralised editor that has the ability to gatekeep the nation’s discourse. If that’s not authoritarian I’m not sure what is!
Social media is a forum for people to complain about the problems they face, if you don’t like that the solution is not to censor the messenger but to fix the problems.
As someone who grew up in the UK I can tell you that the elitist mindset of the UK is a huge part of their problem: only the elite are capable sophisticated right-think, all others are wrong-thinking simpletons and must be silenced for their own safety. The BBC is a huge part of the problem as it is inevitably pro-government but trades off a strong image of neutrality, to the extent that it regularly misleads the public and they lap it up.
If editors are authoritarian for controlling what people see, then social media algorithms are super-authoritarian for the same reason. They also decide what people see, they also modify the cultural and political consciousness, just on a more granular level. An editor can try to push one group of people in one direction, but a social media algorithm can push multiple groups of people in multiple different directions.
IMHO, there's nothing authoritarian about either editors or social media. It only becomes authoritarian when they intentionally align with a central political authority.
I always thought linking all the main things not working in the actual world to the alienation caused by too much digital consumption to be wrong/not really making sense. However, gradually, I am getting closer and closer to that conclusion... In your case, what brought you to the stance "Too much social media is what ails the whole world"? What do you think we could do to solve it?
Social Media used to be better when you actually had a connection to the other person. Nowadays it's mostly anonymous or parasocial. All social media sites have drifted to influencer content (TikTok, Meta, Youtube) or to moving the identity of the other person to the background (reddit, HN). The inbetween of early social media with smaller groups of people who know each other has gotten very rare
The other factor is that everyone now knows how powerful social media can be. Remember when we had positive movements like Occupy Wallstreet, the Arab Spring and Anonymous Hacktivism all facilitated by social media? That doesn't happen anymore. Small things like getting traction for a petition still work, but anything that questions existing structures has no chance of succeeding anymore. Instead social media is overrun by bots that simulate broad consensus on many issues
Are you sure this isn't an Eternal September thing where the initial organizers were just an early-adopting minority, now overrun by a majority that actually has broad consensus on many issues? Also, do you actually have any evidence of bot effects? Would you be able to unleash a bunch of bots on Bluesky and make it seem to have a consensus on tariffs being a good policy?
If you go back in history you can find examples of people making the same claims about too much television. Prior to that, too much radio. Prior to that, too much newspaper consumption.
A common thread is that when people complain about too much media consumption, they’re always talking about other people consuming other media. Few people believe their own consumption to be a societal level problem. Almost nobody believes that their sources of media are the bad ones. It’s always about other sources that other people are consuming.
This is why age verification has the most support of these topics: Adults see it as targeted specifically at a group that isn’t them (young people) whose media they dislike the most.
Did you ever consider that all the concerns regarding the negatives of new media might have some truth to them?
Technology is advancing much faster than humans can biologically evolve and very few people seem ready to seriously tinker with the human genome to keep pace.
Perhaps "the feeds" are just the inflection point where the information overload becomes obvious and baseline humans actually need a majority baseline human experience with all of the associated problems in order to prosper?
So, because some people in the past made (to you) incorrect arguments about something, that means anyone in the future making a remotely similar argument automatically has to be wrong? People in 2025 discussing social media have to be "wrong" because some subset of the population supposedly (to you) made a bad argument about radio 100 years ago?
All of that is broadcast / one direction. Social media is two-way. We've never had two-way mass communication. The rate of communication was an order of magnitude different also.
That doesn't make those claims invalid. Too much television is also a problem, and a lot of television content is junk. Tabloid newspapers are a scourge, as are opinion writers whose output often consists of fallacious propaganda designed to maximize confirmation bias.
In what ways? What things would be better without TV and radio? You think they would be more informed? Or harder to manipulate?
People also complained about literacy rates and the printing press, but how would we have been better off without any of these things so far?
Maybe whatever X newest way to communicate is bad, but when the only evidence against it is the same old arguments that failed to hold up to scrutiny over and over again, I see no reason to give it any more prudence than someone claiming carbonated beverages have caused all out problems. There needs to be compelling evidence beyond people complaining about the collective woes of society that have a cacophony of sources and contributing factors.
To me, different and new communication methods only bring a spot light on issues that we already had. Having a town crier instead of a newspaper, radio, or TV isn't going to make me better informed or less likely to have my information manipulated against me. Sure, it limits the number of sources of information, but that doesn't curate the sources of that information any better when I have no control over them.
As the other user said, people have been warning about new forms of media since the invention of writing. It has always been in vogue to be a nay sayer.
But social media is different. For most forms of media, TV, movies, books, radio etc. You had some degree of agency and choice over what you consumed. You couldn't set what a channel or station was playing, but you could change the channel.
You don't choose what you see on social media. You see what an algorithm thinks is most likely to keep you hooked / going.
Our brains only know what's real based on what's in front of it. You can acknowledge something is rage bait, but as you process it, you will still feel some degree of anger / discomfort. You can acknowledge that something is a cherry picked example, designed to tug the sensibilities of users, but it will still tug on your sensitivities.
And so sure enough, as you keep getting rage baited, concern trolled into algorithmic oblivion, it changes your gestalt. Your worldview shifts to one where those are data points, and it starts distorting your perception of reality.
Garbage In. Garbage Out.
Other people have said that it's like electricity consumption. No. This is very much like tobacco. I don't use social media. Even though I get paid to post to it.
However the uncomfortable truth is that many people enjoy what they see in social media, just like they enjoyed the manufactured bait of Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle on TV.
organize things offline. political stuff, social stuff, hobbies, exercise. The things that people want, that online life isn't providing. I can't see another option other than waiting until tech is so commonplace that the advances don't interest people anymore.
Man, right now if you're white and male you are very much the bottom of the pecking order in the UK.
The only successful professional white men I know and have known for the last 10 years are self employed...and even that is under attack. If you want a permanent job as a white man in the UK, your hope of career progress is minimal at best. You will only be promoted if there is no other option.
There is so much home grown talent in the UK going to waste in the name of modern ideology.
Its creating a kind of apathy towards work for a lot of people. Especially those now reaching their 40s. There are loads and loads of professionals with 20 years under their belts that have seen nothing but stagnant wages and slow / non-existant career progression.
The sad thing is, all of this hard line "white and male is stale" rubbish hasn't changed the balance in terms of wealth distribution...you can still he financially successful as a white man in the UK, just not through permanent work and definitely not working for British businesses.
Ive seen it first hand, I spent ages pitching a business idea and prototype to raise some funding. Not a sausage. As soon as I had a couple of black ladies involved (great lovely women, but far from the top of their game) money fell put of the sky. They didn't even have to deliver high quality pitches.
What is equally as sad is these two ladies don't want to be given hand outs based on their race. They struggle to work out whether what they're trying to do actually has value or whether they're just being given money because they're black and female. It messes with their heads as well.
Yeah totally agree - whether it’s Keir or Boris or whoever in charge, the one thing I want to scream at them is “turn the ‘net off! Turn it off!” People are simply too stupid to handle social media. If I was in charge of authoritarian Britain the first thing I’d do would be to flip the serious switches in the big network cabinet down at GCHQ.
As if the authoritarian state doesn’t prefer its subject distracted and entertained by Netflix, Reddit, TikTok instead of reading books and meeting in coffee shops to discuss anarchist literature and Uncle Ted’s manifesto. The Internet has proven to be the ultimate sedative for the masses.
Sorry to say, gizajob, you would make a terrible dictator.
> I started working with folks from the UK right at the start when social media really took off, and I personally think that what ails the UK is the same as what ails the world. Too much social media.
Absolutely. It's not the only problem, but it is a serious and deep problem.
This narrative is bullocks and I’m sick of hearing this framing. “The UK deserves it because colonialism”.
Contrary to your statement, the UK is a center of education, innovation, and still a major player in finance. The current malaise infects the West and is much more than “brexit” or “colonial hangovers”.
For the self-described "skeptics," 2 hour travel to anywhere on Earth means that everyone gets to have a donor organ shipped to them within the viability window.
If we could go from SF to Tokyo in 2 hours, it would permanently change geopolitics. Imagine commuting between Shenzhen and SF. One foot in each of the two most innovative cities on Earth.
The smaller our world becomes, the more peaceful it becomes.
yeah, but in reality it would mean the rich and powerful can get a donar organ from anywhere in the world. Probably from somewhere whre organs can be cheaply obtained, one way or another and then rushed to the private hospital where Bill Gates is waiting.
It's unlikely that the general speed of spread of a pathogen will cause an increase in adverse outcomes from that pathogen. It's equally possible (though woefully underexamined) that the hastened immunity stemming from more rapid spread will cause a decrease in adverse outcomes.
What causes an increase in adverse outcomes, at least for fast-moving pandemics such as respiratory pandemics, is spread between risk tiers. For example, in the case of a pathogen with a significant age-dependent morbidity/mortality rate, one of the most dire threats is spread within multigenerational households.
Providing resources, opportunities, and guidance to facilitate spread within the low-risk tier while briefly isolating that cohort from the high-risk tier is likely to produce better outcomes.
Stated more tersely: the human proclivity to travel and share immune information with peers is a strength, not a weakness.
>Stated more tersely: the human proclivity to travel and share immune information with peers is a strength, not a weakness.
hmm, ok, since your profile says you study epidemiology sometimes I guess that's a totally reasonable take I hadn't considered. I was of course going off the stuff that was going around during Covid's height when people would refer to theories that faster and increased international travel would lead to more pandemics, and that Covid worked as predicted by that theory.
To be clear: this is totally a hobby for me, although I have made friendly/collaborative inroads with many of the top minds in the field through correspondence going back about 15 years. During the covid19 pandemic, I found myself sitting-in on roundtables and discussions where I was often the only non-MD/MPH on the call.
> I was of course going off the stuff that was going around during Covid's height when people would refer to theories that faster and increased international travel would lead to more pandemics
This has been a topic of scholarly debate and discussion for sometime before covid19; it is a frequent concern regarding several types of pandemic, but especially respiratory pandemics and even more especially hemorrhagic fevers. Food-borne, fomite-borne, and sexually transmitted diseases less so. I think it's fair to say that arboviruses remain an unknown in this regard.
In the case of respiratory pandemics, as best I can tell, the science is very much settling to the conclusion that acute spread through low-risk tiers - which of course is bolstered by international travel - offers some protection against the kinds of pandemics we saw from the emergence of now-endemic H3N2, or the 1918 influenza pandemic, or the 1890's "Russian Flu", which I believe (and I believe most scientists who have studied this believe) was likely the emergence of now-endemic hcov-OC43.
My hope is that one of the key lessons of covid19 is that we need to utilize the population who quickly gain immunity as relief pitchers for the high-risk tier. For example, by the time we closed libraries and schools, there were already millions (perhaps 10 million or more) young and healthy people who had gained immunity from infection without even realizing it. These are the people that can run the libraries and cafeterias and shelters, and perform as substitute teachers and childcare providers, so that we're not turning our nation's poorest children to the streets.
A similar phenomenon occurs on college campuses - in the case of pathogens like coronaviruses where college-age people typically seem to be quite low risk, it makes sense to leave residence halls and similar infrastructure in place, to allow this cohort the option of quickly gaining immunity to be available to assist the higher-risk tiers in isolating. Of course this needs to be done with caution and empiricism - the 1918 pandemic reminds us that the age/risk correlation is sometimes inverted, and this can be very confounding to an orderly public health response.
Perhaps most importantly, any plan which delays spread in the low-risk tier, by definition, requires the high-risk tier to isolate commensurate with that delay, and this is a dire situation. Most poor people (who are disproportionately high-risk) simply don't have the means to survive prolonged isolation. Much better is to facilitate spread stratified by risk - ideally a complete spread through the low-risk tier in short order, so that this cohort can safely assist high-risk communities during their isolation.
This basic principle enjoyed what seemed like consensus prior to covid19, and became total hot lava. Hopefully we have returned to sanity and won't make this mistake again.
People who haven't been on HN for a while tend to think HN keeps getting worse etc. and that's rarely the case, but I do think something has changed in the site's core audience.
HN has attracted its share of luddites. People who aren't interested in building a better future. But are very interested in tearing it down.
When did HN become a place where dreams of a better future were met with proclamations of disease?
You can make the case for whatever case you are trying to make, without pushing back on this quite specific extremely correct point. When people meet. disease spreads. If it doesn't spread when they breathe on one another, it will spread when they touch. If it doesn't spread when they touch, it will spread when they fuck. If it doesn't spread when they fuck - phew, crikey, this disease is useless indeed, and natural selection will see it off quickly. Meanwhile our protagonists now have flu, norovirus and crabs.
Yeah, this is why neighboring countries never go to war.
If anything, being able to just fly over the ugly parts and arrive directly at your plastic wrapped all inclusive resort is a good way to increase the social divide and drive us closer to a war.
Neighboring countries that trade and are in each other's supply chains + economic zones don't go to war.
See: the US' painful and bizarre attempts at butchering its relationship with Canada. The integration of the two economies means that such ham fisted manoeuvres take money out of people's pockets pretty fast.
In a pre-mass travel world, I can see someone like a certain leader attempting to annex Canada. Now? It's unthinkable. Just saying it causes billions in damage.
This works as long as the leaders strongly favour economic prosperity of their countries. Russia invaded Ukraine, despite that the countries traded a lot, and their supply chains were cross-linked.
You'd think so, but Europe grew ever smaller, with open borders, low-cost flights, single market, until at some point it didn't any more, and that process is since 2016 reversing.
I don't know. At some point in the not so distant past the west had hundreds of flights to Moscow and St. Petersburg and bought hundreds of millions worth of goods from Russia every day.
If shorter distances were correlated with more peace there wouldn't be a genocide in Gaza, since the distance from Gaza to Tel Aviv is only about 70 km. More travel may have other advantages, but peace doesn't seem to be one of them.
In the age of X ditching Twitter and Tweets, I think brand continuity and identity is underrated. The friendly finder logo is such an essential part of MacOS that it's bizarre (at least to me) that they've changed the color symmetry of the face.
Why would you do that? It's as iconic as the Apple silhouette for Apple users.
If you've ever used MacOS, you've had that face stare back at you. It's a kind face. A friendly face. An old face. An old friend. Let's keep it that way.
edit - on further thought, was this change user tested? I'm fairly certain that even the most middle-of-the-road, suburban dad on his 10th layover will notice something is different when they look at it. It's a strange change.
It's not different enough to force recognition as a new symbol. It's just different enough to be weird.
The overwhelming majority of people I know in real life haven't actually been on the platform for years, if they ever were, and some of those have used X by default in the rare case in comes up. It's slowly changing, but was quickly dying before Trump and Elon got their hands on it. Mileage may vary, but I imagine there's an association between Twitter still being the old place where tired millennials shout about nothing to bots all day
TBH, it's better if this new generation of Apple's UI designers waste their energy on such trivialities instead of trying to "improve" Finder features (not that Finder is all that great to begin with though).
Let them tinker with icons, fonts, colors and "evoking emotions" all day long, at least then they don't break any actually important stuff.
> The friendly finder logo is such an essential part of MacOS that it's bizarre (at least to me) that they've changed the color symmetry of the face.
> Why would you do that? It's as iconic as the Apple silhouette for Apple users.
> If you've ever used MacOS, you've had that face stare back at you. It's a kind face. A friendly face. An old face. An old friend. Let's keep it that way.
I mean ... not all Apple users, not all MacOS users. I've been using Macs since the late 90s (daily since ~2004) and maybe I'm entirely unique in this, but if you'd asked me prior to TFA and this discussion to describe the Finder icon ... I likely wouldn't have been able to tell you anything except "it's topmost in my Dock". Seriously, I couldn't have told you the colours (nor did I notice that Tahoe has flipped them); I definitely wouldn't have said "essential", "kind" or "friendly"; and I probably wouldn't even have recalled that it's a face. It's just that icon that's always topmost in my Dock that I haven't clicked in years because, well, Spotlight.
it's creepy not friendly (especially now, as I somehow never consciously noticed that it's a dead forever smiling face), the new one simply looks amateurish and bad.
The current tech giants spend a lot of money on "research," where research means optimizing parts of the product line to the 10^nth order of magnitude.
Arguably, Google Brain was one such lab. Albeit with more freedom than normal.
Which is fine, it's their money. But then they (and the broader public) shouldn't bemoan the lack of fundamental advances and a slowdown in the pace of discovery and change.
As someone who worked at both Brain and DeepMind: their cultures were very different. Brain was bottom-up, open-field research whatever you want/care for. DeepMind was much more narrowly focused and massively more top-down.
A decent amount of people seem to be unhappy/leaving deep-mind due to the forced focus on AI and lack of freedom currently though. Therefore the point above still stands.
This finding has been consistently true since people have started measuring merger outcomes, "we find that each merger is associated with a quality decrease (increase) in markets where the merging firms had (had no) pre-merger competition with each other, and the quality change can have a U-shaped relationship with pre-merger competition intensity. Consumer gains/losses associated with quality changes, which we monetize, are substantial " – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01677...
It is doubtful that merging two companies would have improved the EU's capability to compete with Chinese state operators. On the other hand, lowering the capital threshold to create a new entrant would definitely improve the EU's competitive position and capabilities, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=cele...
reply