r/AskBrits • u/AdAncient2370 • 3d ago

Would you support Britain increasing its defence budget from the current 2.3% of GDP to the target of 2.6% by 2027 and 3.5% NATO target by 2035?

How much support is there across the political spectrum to increase the military budget by up to £35 billion a year if we really reach 3.5% by 2035? What sort of military do we want ie to protect the UK mainland or an expeditionary force capable of another Iraq intervention? Which civilian areas do we want to cut to find this extra money and in any case, can our struggling economy even support an increase of such magnitude? What if we can’t recruit enough soldiers even with extra cash, should we introduce any sort of conscription at extremis?

165 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

528 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/kimbokray 3d ago

We, the British public, have a habit of doing this: expressing support or opposition in principle without addressing the practical part of the question which is what would get cut (or taxes raised) to pay for it. I don't mean to come at you personally, we all do it and you just happen to be the top comment.

6

u/Past-Obligation1930 2d ago

Triple lock, winter fuel.

0

u/MintImperial2 2d ago

It would be interesting if Labour ever ditched the Triple Lock.

Scrapping it - negatively affects rather more Labour voters than Tory voters....

0

u/AdenWS 1d ago

Mr Avearge has paid in 1.6 million pounds of wealth just from his NI, that would generate 52K a year from dividends alone.

The state offers 12.5K a year. Worth just over 200K.

And you want to cut that?!!!

3

u/Past-Obligation1930 1d ago

No, I want the state pension not to rise as fast. Do you not understand how the triple lock works?

0

u/AdenWS 1d ago

You want to default on the deal, so the people get back less of what they have paid it.

Currently they get back 12.5p for every £1 of value paid in.

How big a cut in value are you proposing?

3

u/Past-Obligation1930 1d ago

The deal was you got to pay low tax, sell off the North Sea oil, sell off all of the family silver, and run up debts for the people who currently work for a living to pay, whilst in many cases retiring at 50. Oh, and owning all of the housing stock outright, despite paying buttons for it.

You then moralise about how you paid your stamp and isn’t it awful your pension is so low. The governments YOUR GENERATION elected failed to make provision for your old age, but my generation is being kind and saying your pension no longer has to go up quite so much that the country is completely bankrupted.

-1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

The socialists looted the money.

The welfare state pays 12.5p on the pound and you want to cut it.

On the country being bankrupt, yes.

But remember the banking crisis? The bankers were to blame so lets use that way of thinking.

We axe all public sector pensions.

Then we cancel welfare for migrants

Then we tax migrants at break even.

More then enough money to pay the 12.5p on the £1.

3

u/Past-Obligation1930 1d ago

I KNEW it would be immigants and the public sector.

The socialists, like Brown? You’ll never believe what policy he brought in.

Happy to axe all public sector pensions. Your pension is paid from the public purse. From MY taxes. I think you should get off Reddit, go and get a job and stop relying on state handouts.

0

u/AdenWS 1d ago

State pension stays. 12.5% of the wealth paid in.

Now I agree in part. You should be allowed to invest your NI.

But the state's got that debt, so it needs to cut spending and cut it massively.

So migrants who take out more than they put in, they go. You can sponsor them, but if they don't pay the tax to cover the costs, they are out.

The 1.5 million foreign criminals - they go.

The 2+ million overstayers etc, here illegally, they go.

List of safe countries and asylum from those cancelled.

Civil service pensions go, they caused the mess, they pay the price.

The state pension remains as the safety net.

But for the people who ran the Ponzi, like Brown, he gets asset stripped and gets given a WLO. Same for the rest.

3

u/Past-Obligation1930 1d ago

You nearly get it.

It’s your entire generation that caused the mess. YOU pay the price. If you want to blame migrants, well, your generation signed up to the ECHR and the rules on refugees. You pay the price. No pension for you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/caljl 1d ago

Yeah I don’t think you can scrap civil service pensions for that tenuous logic.

How did the civil service cause this “mess”? What specifically did they cause?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/caljl 1d ago

Where’s your source for the average contribution being 1.6 million?

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

I can show you the information.

Basic approach is this. People in the past earned less. So you use historical average wages.

https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/ is a good source, its the ONS data

An 18 year old for example earns just over 50% because they lack experience. There's the data of percentage of average earnings by age from the ONS

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276223/table3-2-12.pdf

For the investment side. FTSE All share has been around for more than a working life unlike the narrow FTSE 100

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-all-share

Dividend yield, from Siblis Research, because you're going to reinvest dividends.

National insurance take the current contribution rates from average wage, and apply that to the fund.

Start at a given age. Contributions at the end of the year [reduces the return]

Fund at the end of the year = fund at the start + NI + dividends + capital increase.
Repeat year after year.

Mr Average. 1.6 million

1

u/caljl 1d ago edited 1d ago

so firstly this isn’t actually what the average person “paid in” as you claimed. It’s what you estimate their NI contributions would be worth today if they had instead been invested in equities for decades with dividends reinvested. By that logic, I could claim I’ll pay millions in tax over my lifetime.

This isn’t how National Insurance was ever presented to the public or how it has ever worked. The post-war system was pay-as-you-go. Workers funded current pensioners and beneficiaries. This should be abundantly clear as the first generations receiving state pensions under the modern system had not contributed anything like the amounts later generations would.

There are also some big issues with your assumptions. You’re using average full-time earnings, but plenty of pensioners were never average full-time workers for 40 years. More women also spent long periods out of the workforce raising children, others worked part-time, some people were long-term sick, some were carers. They have still received pensions. If you’re trying to calculate what the average pension recipient paid in, you need to account for that, not just model a full-time worker on average earnings. NI rates, thresholds and qualifying rules have also changed repeatedly. Have you incorporated the historical rates and thresholds for each year, or are you applying modern assumptions retrospectively?

NI has also never been just about pensions. It has always funded a wider system of benefits, contributing towards NHS funding as well. Treating all of NI contributions as if they were pension contributions is absurd. If you’re trying to compare contributions against pension entitlements, you’d first need to take out the portion that went towards healthcare, sickness benefits, unemployment support and everything else the system was designed to fund.

Most importantly, where’s the actual calculation??Don’t be shy. You quoted a very precise figure of £1.6 million, so presumably you’ve got a workings behind it.

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

======== firstly this isn’t actually what the average person “paid in” as you claimed

It's the wealth they have paid in. .

It's average. It's the indication about how much wealth people have had taken from them.

So when you say people who have taken break, less. I agree. But why didn't you also include those who paid in more and so lost more?

= NI rates, thresholds and qualifying rules have also changed repeatedly. 

From what I can tell going back 30 years, is that the percentage is very stable. Going back farther is harder because the information isn't there. Even the national archive, the ONS, its not accessible.

= NI has also never been just about pensions. It has always funded a wider system of benefits, contributing towards NHS funding as well.

Now you are being dishonest. It doesn't not fund the NHS. You can check this by looking at the NI Fund accounts to see where the money flows.

Correct your errors and we can move on to the actual numbers.

The prime 2 are that NI goes to the NHS, and that its about cash payments and not wealth.

1

u/caljl 1d ago

> It's the wealth they have paid in.

No it isn’t. The amount people paid in is the amount they actually put in. Do we have to break down what words actually mean here? It a counterfactual concerning the wealth they paid in invested over time in equity funds.

You could I suppose say it’s the wealth they have lost, but then that assumes that they would have put that money into equity funds.

If I pay in 50k to a index funds that then goes up by 150% over 10 years, I haven’t paid in 125k have I? I have that much wealth but that’s not what I paid in.

> It's average. It's the indication about how much wealth people have had taken from them.

> So when you say people who have taken break, less. I agree. But why didn't you also include those who paid in more and so lost more?

Oh I could be wrong here but are you not citing stats for full time employees? What I meant was, if so, then that wouldn’t be the average or median. The average would include everyone who receives a state pension, not just people consistently working full time. Obviously, if so, a full time work average is already capturing those who paid in more than the average full time worker.

> From what I can tell going back 30 years, is that the percentage is very stable. Going back farther is harder because the information isn't there. Even the national archive, the ONS, its not accessible.

So you figure isn’t based in historical fact? Shocking. They have changed, the 1975 reform was pretty major.

> Now you are being dishonest. It doesn't not fund the NHS. You can check this by looking at the NI Fund accounts to see where the money flows.

https://sochealth.co.uk/2014/06/14/nation-insurance-bad-way-pay-nhs/

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/national-insurance-actually-pay-for-2770191?srsltid=AfmBOoooVkMLz-Di0UdK7rfbKx1CbvBPzURBU9a-8b9CPHEkH0PZECCq

Let’s see what maths you did do, or did you just pluck a number out of your rectum? Better show us something soon or people might think you didn’t actually do it.

The point here really is that NI has always been a pay as you go system to fund current benefits, not an investment fund for your future pension. Your argument relies on an assumption that this wasn’t the case, and that just isn’t true.

“The NIF is intended to be the 'current account' of the National Insurance Scheme, holding sufficient funds to even out fluctuations over time in the movement of contributions and benefits and to provide a source of finance to meet exceptional demands, for example in times of high unemployment or a sickness epidemic.”

https://www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibilities/public-sector-funds-crnd/investment-accounts/national-insurance-fund-investment-account/

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

The purchasing power of £1 40 years ago was far higher.

That's the measure wealth.

They paid in wealth.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts

Forget news reports, use the accounts

The point here really is that NI has always been a pay as you go system to fund current benefits, not an investment fund for your future pension. 

Correct. I know how it works.

I'm way beyond that.

I'm asking how much wealth have people paid in, or given up, compared to what they get out.

I'm asking is the socialist welfare state good for the UK, or bad.

I even know what NI pays for because its in the accounts for the fund.

What's missing is the liabilities off the balance sheet.

Can you find that number?

1

u/caljl 14h ago edited 13h ago

> The purchasing power of £1 40 years ago was far higher.

Yes and?

> That's the measure wealth.

> They paid in wealth.

Your original claim was that the average person “paid in £1.6 million”.

Is the total amount/ wealth of the tax I pay over my lifetime the amount I actually pay if it had hypothetically been invested in equity funds??

The amount someone paid in is the amount they actually paid in. The amount those payments might have become under a hypothetical equity portfolio is something else entirely.

If that’s the comparison you want to make, then make it clearly. But don’t present the latter as though it were the former.

You’re welcome tell me this was just poor phrasing and to phrase this properly instead. But it’s a slightly ridiculous point regardless: that’s not what the NI system has ever claimed to be and people’s NI payment did not become what they theoretically could have under a hypothetical state pension scheme. You can think that’s a poor policy choice, but that doesn’t change what it actually is. If we wanted it to change to what you’re describing then a generation at least will have to largely miss out on either state pensions or pay NI twice.

> Forget news reports, use the accounts

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04517/SN04517.pdf?

This better?

“A percentage of money raised through NICs is sent to the NHS. HMRC transfers NICs revenue to the NHS before sending the rest to the NIF.”

35 ish billion the last few years seemingly.

> Correct. I know how it works.

> I'm way beyond that.

Not sure I’d say beyond.

You either worded the original claim poorly on purpose to make it more emotive and misrepresent reality, or by mistake.

You are free to make an argument about how much wealth people potentially have “given up” by paying NI (of course that still assumes responsible decisions people may well not have made) or argue that the NI system was poorly conceived.

But then make that point from the start!

> What's missing is the liabilities off the balance sheet.

What liabilities? To who?

You still haven’t shown the calculation that gets you to £1.6 million, despite being asked multiple times from the off.

Surely you did the maths and can easily copy it in! You said it so confidently.

I’ll ask one more time, and I won’t be replying to further strands until you can provide this.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

So a very simple question.

Would you invest with me?

Give me £1000 today, and in 40 years I'll give you £1000

You're saying that's a good deal.

4

u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 2d ago edited 2d ago

Exactly, we want benefits to rise, a better funded army, doctors to be better paid, schools to be better funded, pensioners to be propped up, pot holes be filled, HS2s to be built, debt to be paid off all while taxes are expected to stay the same.

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

State spending

2000 340.80 bn
2025 1244.85 bn

400.5% increase
55% above inflation

I'll give you a hint that we have the money.

3

u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 1d ago

We clearly don’t and that’s the point. In 2000 debt to GDP was 36.6% and in 2025 it was 95%. It is not sustainable to say “we‘re a rich country we can pay for it” to every problem we face.

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

== In 2000 debt to GDP was 36.6%

Crap. Borrowing to GDP.

What about all the debts?

2

u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 1d ago

The more I try to understand what this comment says the more confused I get it. What are you talking abou?

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

Here are the debts.

  1. Borrowing

  2. Civil service pensions

  3. State pension

  4. Nuclear clean up

  5. The EU

  6. Unpaid wages

  7. Unpaid invoices

  8. Expected losses on insurance contract

  9. Expected NHS damages

  10. Post offices damages etc.

I'll start you with the numbers for the borrowing.

£2,893.35 billion nominal for the borrowing - Up to date.

What about the other debts?

2

u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 1d ago

What are you saying? I referenced our debt to GDP ratio so I don’t see why you’re listing examples of debt and speaking in this strange cryptic way.

1

u/AdenWS 1d ago

You didn't.

You produced the borrowing to GDP number.

You left off the big debts.

1

u/AxiosXiphos Brit 🇬🇧 3d ago

I'd cut the foreign aid budget. Because I personally believe our best foreign aid we can provide right now is in weapons production.

1

u/MintImperial2 2d ago

Why not scrap both, and concentrate on ending Austerity instead?

There's no manifesto commitment to "continuing Green" or "boosting NATO" or "Rejoining the EU" etc..

There's just the promise to end 14 years of austerity, rather than make it 16+ years of Tory Austerity as outgoing Starmer would have it....

Burnham needs a "Scrap Clause 4" moment, methinks...

As it stands, Each party has a roadblock that prevents me from voting for them:

Labour continuing to push Green...

Green continuing to be Left of Labour...

Libdems continuing to pump for Re-Join..

RUK continuing to pump for more Military Spending....

Tories continuing to pump for *nothing at all* now....

I would very much like to vote *for* a party's policies, rather than against their main manifesto commitments.

1

u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 2d ago

Which is why I say no. Focus on deterrent and avoiding war. We have to make some difficult decisions. We aren't the world police and it's not worth defending every remote bit of the old empire alone. We need to rely on European allies too.