Recent searches
Search options
There is now a critical consensus that Rachel Reeves *chose* to cut disability benefits to make up for a (projected) shortfall revealed by the interaction of the Office of Budget Responsibility's forecast(s) and her (self-imposed) fiscal rules.
Just to bang home this point (again) here is @sjwrenlewis offering an elegant argument (from a macroeconomics standpoint) that this was (and is) Reeves' choice not something 'forced' upon her!
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2025/03/why-cant-we-do-fiscal-policy-in-grown.html
@ChrisMayLA6 @sjwrenlewis I’m a scientist (ish) and I am eternally amazed at the OBR putting out failed forecasts year after year for well over a decade. Meteorologists or epidemiologists would have long lost their jobs.
@ChrisMayLA6 @sjwrenlewis Yes, and even without this it was still a choice that she chose to make. Indefensible.
Hmm... take money from people who already have close to nothing, and have barely seen their income rise in real terms for well over a decade, or increase tax maybe just one percent on top earners, some of whom have seen their income rise well above 1000% in the same time. (And after a little extra tax would still have way more than they had 10 years ago).
Seems fair /s