Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the U.K. broke its own economy

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 784 posts

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#391

Post by isaacfrond »

pjc50 wrote: post #332
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #80

The last government intentionally banned the cheapest source of energy, onshore wind, from being built in England, by making it so that a single complaint could stop a project. I cannot believe this article talks about planning constraints and energy prices and doesn't mention that.

As we can see down thread, people have got into a terrible mess of duelling propaganda and gone mad about wind power. We can have cheap clean energy, it requires a small amount of change, oh no, let's destroy everything instead. I'm going to start suggesting that planning should have a local referendum: approve this set of projects and you'll get cheaper electricity. Disapprove and your bill goes up. Democratic choic…

That would not work. Just include a few million in your budget to convince the population of SmallVille and you can start building your coal-fired power station.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#392

Post by mmarq »

kmeisthax wrote: post #92
patrickdavey wrote: post #81

Fascinatng that `brexit` isn't mentioned once in that article. Making trading harder with your closest neighbour can't be a great move for the economy.

Brexit is a symptom, not the cause. The people who were most screwed by Britain's prior mistakes voted for it in a vain attempt at fixing the problem by throwing misguided nostalgia at it.

The old, which have been ‘criminally’ favoured by Britain’s mistakes, have overwhelmingly voted for Brexit. While the young, who have been royally screwed, voted Remain.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#393

Post by lotsofpulp »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #386
matteotom wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$300k income, MFJ, $46k 401k contribution, $8k HSA contribution After standard deduction ($29k), AGI is about $217k. That's the 24% bracket (barely), which adds up to $34,337 + 0.24*$16000 ~= $38,200 federal income tax $38,200/$300k = 12.7% You can get even lower with itemized deductions: mortgage interest (might be over $40k) plus SALT ($10k) plus a few donations ($5k) => AGI of $191k => federal tax rate of under 11…

That is impressive. Thanks for the very thoughtful answer. Many times before, I have seen utterly bullshit tax minimisation claims on HN, but rarely an answer as good as this one! Deeper question: Now that you provided a reasonably scenario where a household earning 300K USD combined income can "only" pay 12+% in federal taxes: Does this make sense from a policy perspective? My point: Should it be higher? It seems ha…

It really isn’t worth discussing just federal tax liability in the US, due to how complicated the various taxing jurisdictions are and how diffuse various governing expenses are throughout those jurisdictions.

Especially when comparing to effective tax rates in countries with universal healthcare and different defined benefit pension schemes. For example, health insurance premiums in the US are a tax, due to the myriad restrictions on how premiums can be priced. Just not collected by the government, but it definitely is young and healthy subsidizing poor and sick.

Also, note that most of the reduction in tax liability is due to setting money aside for later use, so it is akin to deferring taxes, rather than just reducing taxes.

Another way to make sense of policy is that the federal US spend is 60% on defined benefit pensions for old people and healthcare for old or poor people, 17% on military, 13% on interest, and the remaining 10% for the rest of the federal government’s operations.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#394

Post by rsynnott »

Myrmornis wrote: post #238
walthamstow wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget that the natural landscape of Britain is forest. The enclosed fields people think are natural countryside are in fact an entirely human creation.

I'm sorry you're saying people think agricultural fields are natural vegetation?

I’m not sure anyone consciously thinks that, but the kind of nostalgic “old England” thing is big on fields and grass, not so much forest.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#395

Post by Retric »

Ekaros wrote: post #325
alvah wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's misleading, and those who use it generally know it's misleading. It's used to persuade the layperson that electricity generated by wind turbines is cheaper to the consumer or industry than electricity generated by thermal sources or hydro turbines, when in fact that is only true if you disregard the requirement for said electricity to be available on demand - a fairly important omission.

I often wonder how many people would accept automatic black outs when buying green energy. A process that "happens" here. You can buy for example purely wind powered electricity. But somehow that does not stop being delivered when there is no wind. Instead there would be electric relay connected to mains in your home and when there is less supply than demand you would get blackout. That would be similar comparison to…

Assuming you also get closer to wind generation prices not just overall wholesale prices, it would be really popular.

People would install a battery at home the way most of the world installs solar and they’d see massive reductions in electricity bills more than paying for the battery. The UK is absolutely terrible location for solar, and it’s still installed because UK’s electricity prices are so high.

That said, wind going to absolutely zero nationwide is extremely unlikely but the more people who signed up for such a system eventually just a little power wouldn’t be enough for all of them. So there’s be an economic feedback loop.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#396

Post by rsynnott »

milesrout wrote: post #254
walthamstow wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget that the natural landscape of Britain is forest. The enclosed fields people think are natural countryside are in fact an entirely human creation.

The "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain. Are moors not natural landscapes because they were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago? Is it natural when animals do something but not when humans do it? Or is it natural when hunter gatherers do something but not when agriculturalists do it? Or is it natural when non-industrial people do it, but not when industrialists do it? And why does you…

I mean on that basis you could say that Milton Keynes is natural because humans did it.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#397

Post by byefruit »

pjc50 wrote: post #332
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #80

The last government intentionally banned the cheapest source of energy, onshore wind, from being built in England, by making it so that a single complaint could stop a project. I cannot believe this article talks about planning constraints and energy prices and doesn't mention that.

As we can see down thread, people have got into a terrible mess of duelling propaganda and gone mad about wind power. We can have cheap clean energy, it requires a small amount of change, oh no, let's destroy everything instead. I'm going to start suggesting that planning should have a local referendum: approve this set of projects and you'll get cheaper electricity. Disapprove and your bill goes up. Democratic choic…

This has already been proposed by the current government for wind farms: https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/new-energy-bill-discoun...

And the switch to zonal energy pricing will likely have a similar effect for other sources of generation.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#398

Post by secondcoming »

lsllc wrote: post #60

I have some friends over there and they (or their employers) are cutting back on their business expenditures, staffing and overall outlook. The new payroll taxes (unemployment insurance?) are going to bite both employers and employees alike. Taxes are too high, there's too much red tape for businesses and successive governments have failed to invest in anything outside of the "south" (e.g. Greater London). I was (hal…

Scotland has higher income tax than England and Wales.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#399

Post by devnullbrain »

ascorbic wrote: post #367
Tiktaalik wrote: post #300

This article is severely tilted nonsense with a weird ideological bent. The author sneers against regulatory rules to limit suburban sprawl but really none of that has anything to do with a housing shortage. It is entirely possible to denser and taller buildings, having both compact communities, green space, farms and forest and also addressing housing needs. UK hinders its economy by declining to do so (as do so man…

The UK needs to do both. It needs to allow denser development, but that isn't enough. It is also possible to expand the green belt without causing suburban sprawl.

There's not one green belt. There are a number of green belts, typically constricting our biggest economic centres, but the spaces between allow development.

This leads to situations like Oxford where people working in the university that gave the city its current fame can't afford to live in it. Instead they live in suburban towns outside of Oxford's green belt and commute in - through it. Ironically, there is now an incentive for the same number of people to sprawl over a larger area, requiring more railways, roads and parking. Many locals in Oxford's new sprawl expect a non-existent greenbelt to protect their areas and are left disappointed.

The real rub is that England lacks Scotland's right to roam. So protecting all this green land doesn't even give us the right to walk in it. Only to gaze from a passing window.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#400

Post by moooo99 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #323
roenxi wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is how literally everything in a market gets priced. When you buy an X, the price of it naturally trends to match the most expensive X that will be sold. In this case X is a watt of energy. But you can substitute any good or service.

No product on a real market ever works like that (otherwise all goods of the same kind would cost the same everywhere in a country, priced at the marginal cost of supplying it to the most remote island community, which everyone can attest is not how markets work). Such a behavior only happens on artificial markets that have been designed for that purpose to match an ideological vision of how an “ideal market” should…

> Turns out the “ideal market” is a dystopia instead of the intended utopia.

Why? This market is pretty much ideal and sets the right incentives. You have little to no information asymmetry, you need to strike a price that clears the market because you must balance production and demand.

Why should sellers of renewable energy be forced to sell at their marginal cost when they are selling a commodity where somebody else gets triple the price?

Post reply on HN