David Dorrell (@DJGD) header
David Dorrell (@DJGD) profile picture

Tweeting (all views my own, which is probably relatively obvious)

London
Joined February 2011
Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)Photo by David Dorrell (@DJGD)
David Dorrell retweeted
Andy Burnham, in two weeks of being PM, has perfectly illustrated the main problem in UK public finances. Week 1: there's a cost of living crisis, so to help you we've taken £45 a year off your electricity bill and capped bus fares at £2. Week 2: we don't have enough money to fund everything we want to do, so we're taking £630 a year out of your salary. Same government, same month. Credit where it's due first - taking VAT off electricity from October is real money, so is the £2 bus cap in January if you're on a bus twice a day. Immediate cost of living relief is genuinely needed by most people. But I'm not sure how someone who couldn't manage without that £45 a year of relief is supposed to now manage with £630 a year less in their pocket? The £630 is a 1.8% levy on income to fund a National Care Service costed at £18bn a year. On a £35,000 salary it's £630, on £50,000 it's £900. It's charged as a percentage of your income. It's collected out of your income. It is not, apparently, income tax, because they're going to call it a levy. It also only applies to taxpayers over 34... So you turn 35 and take a pay cut, at the exact age most people are stretched on a mortgage with childcare costing more than the mortgage. But the UKs ACTUALLY problem? Spending is too high. And it's too high in ways that are fixable if anyone was willing to challenge the status quo rather than buy more votes with handouts. This is where £1,383bn goes this year: Health, £269.6bn Pensions, £236.3bn Welfare, £204.0bn Education, £126.7bn Debt interest, £104.6bn Defence, £75.2bn Everything else, £367.1bn Health, £269.6bn: We need mandatory health insurance as an employment benefit and a hybrid model. Everyone hears "insurance" and pictures America, someone bleeding out over a copay, as if no other model exists on earth. The Netherlands has mandatory private health insurance. Insurers are legally required to accept everyone. They cannot charge you more for being chronically ill. A risk equalisation pool moves money towards the insurers covering the sickest people. It's consistently ranked top three in Europe. Welfare, £204.0bn: Income tax raises £330bn. So almost 2 of every 3 pounds of Income Tax taken from every working person in this country is spoken for by the welfare bill. Welfare should be for people who cannot work. Disability, genuine incapacity, the people it was built to protect. It has drifted into a general income top-up, and the number that proves it is 4.2 million working age people now claiming at least one health related benefit, up a million since 2019. Change how we determine eligibility, fix a lot of spending issues immediately. Pensions, £236.3bn: The state pension is a Ponzi scheme, and I mean that technically rather than as an insult. There is no fund - the ONS says so plainly. Your National Insurance is not being put aside and invested for your State Pension, It just pays the payouts for last year's pensioners. Yours depends entirely on there being enough workers behind you. Which, btw, there won't be. The ratio of pensioners to workers goes from 27% to 48% by 2050 (and these estimates are before we've seen the proper impact of AI/automation on jobs. Australia already fixed this: 12% of earnings into a private fund with your name on it, mandatory, employer paid. It's your money, it compounds, it doesn't need a bigger generation behind you to work. We could mandate the same tomorrow and let the state pension run down over the next 40 years, eventually saving £236bn a year. You can't levy your way out of these problems. A 1.8% charge on everyone over 34 raises £18bn. It doesn't even cover the interest on our existing debt. And in the meantime... If we're going to borrow anyway, why is none of it buying anything? Norway found oil in 1969 and put the money in a fund... That fund is now worth $2.049 trillion. It holds a stake in roughly 1.5% of every listed company on the planet. We found oil in the same decade and spent it. The UK's National Wealth Fund is capitalised at £27.8bn. Norway's is about 73 times bigger. So where is our position in AI, in data centres, in grid scale renewables, in batteries, in electric vehicles, in any of the things the next fifty years actually runs on? We borrow £133bn a year and almost none of it buys an asset. Fix government spending immediately, increase government income over time (without milking people for every penny of 'levy' you can find), and quality of life will genuinely improve as people have more money in their pockets. The UK has a spending problem, not a tax problem.
347
1,208
100
5,922
1,315,792
This is extraordinary from the Covid inquiry. No modelling “established” that 23,000 lives would be saved if lockdown had happened a week earlier - that was a notorious and debunked Ferguson claim…
201
539
84
1,969
293,792
David Dorrell retweeted
‘If you want to raise serious money, it is a childish fantasy to pretend that you can do so solely from the few rather than the many.’ Me in @thetimes today on why Labour MPs and activists calling for a wealth tax need to grow up fast. Thread fellows (1/?)
76
165
50
1,069
277,989
I am enjoying the British Left suddenly becoming massively in favour of free speech. All it took was for their views to be censored. While it was the views of the majority of the country, they turned a blind eye at best and cheered it on and enabled it at worst. Some of us have been pro free speech this entire time. Not because it benefitted a particular side of the political spectrum but because of this dated and cringey thing called "principles". So I will happily agree that designating a bunch of middle class vegan morons a terrorist group because they snuck onto an RAF base and did some criminal damage is excessive. They should have been shot, of course, but that doesn't make the entire group terrorists. And I agree that the people who are now protesting against this should not be arrested as terrorist supporters. But I can't also not enjoy watching these hypocrites cry about the very tactics they've been defending and supporting this entire time. You wanted this for your enemies and now it's being applied to you. How do you like it?
431
2,341
95
19,089
540,098
10 things that shocked me about my debate with @garyseconomics 1. He didn’t share any facts. Not one. He wants us to accept his entire philosophy on feels. When presented with data he jumps to “I’m always right betting on the economy”. 2. He didn’t know the difference or distinguish between income and inheritance. He described inheritance as income and wanted to tax it the same as income… even though it’s money that has already been taxed once already! 3. He thinks that Rishi Sunak is worth £700M and it should be taxed now even though this number related to his father in law’s foreign company. In Gary’s world, if you marry the daughter of a wealthy foreign national, the UK Government should be able to seize some of that families money. Also, owning a stake in a technology business was described as “hoarding wealth”. 4. Almost all examples he gives about “wealth” are where he imagines someone owning houses with no debt and no costs of running them and they all make 5% yield clear. In reality, hardly anyone rich owns a large number of debt free houses that spit off 5% “passive income”. Most billionaires own companies that comprise of intangible assets that can be relocated elsewhere. 5. He barely knows the difference between revenue, profit and assets. When I explored how to tax billionaires, his answers jumped between them indiscriminately. 6. He believes the cause of wealth inequality is … wealth inequality. A measurement can not be the cause of that measurement. Other than being born rich, Gary doesn’t acknowledge any underlying causes such as technology or the type of work someone does As playing a role in why people get different financial outcomes in life. 7. He seems to think all jobs should pay the same. A “grime poet” should be earning the same as someone working in finance. There’s no good or bad choices, it’s just unfair that some people end up richer than others. 8. He seems to think the only thing responsible for an affluent middle class from 1950s to 1980s was high taxes on the rich. He doesn’t take anything like labour shortages, massive post-war rebuilding efforts or a baby boom into consolidation. 9. Suggesting people have personal agency (or go—forbid, responsibility) isn’t a topic he’s comfortable with at all. Sharing statistics about the high levels of self-made millionaires doesn’t wash. Gary robs people of agency with his belief that you either have a rich dad or ”99.9% of the time you wont achieve financial security”. 10. The ONLY way to improve the economy is through higher taxes on wealth. He sees no downsides to this and genuinely thinks capital flight isn’t a real Consideration. As much as I respect Gary’s passion and dedication, I feel like he has a very low resolution knowledge of the topic he wants to advise the country on. I feel like it’s just a deep anger about unfairness of outcomes when it comes to money.
I'm talking at this tomorrow at 17:45, central London outside the Treasury: Tell the UK Chancellor to Tax the Super-Rich secure.waronwant.org/page/16…
814
647
182
5,227
838,034
David Dorrell retweeted
Opinion polls often show lots of people personally willing to pay more tax. But they never ask the obvious follow-up question: how much more tax? We did. It wasn't pretty.
Twice as many people believe spending on public services should be increased even if it means tax rises for h/holds like theirs (56%), than agree taxes should be reduced for h/holds like theirs, even if it meant less spending on public services (24%) financialfairness.org.uk/en-…
171
418
113
2,155
931,382
David Dorrell retweeted
Starmer, if he becomes PM, will inherit the highest British taxes since the war. Only an idiot would say this is his fault. Thing is, it's not Sunak's fault either. A thread where I will annoy everyone.
201
821
164
4,069
1,240,073
David Dorrell retweeted
This is a good question. Here's the answer:
Can someone please explain to me, in a way that would make sense to a toddler, why I'm taxed more for my labour than a millionaire is taxed for their investments?
142
1,379
87
9,752
4,898,431
David Dorrell retweeted
🎉🌼🌸April Fools! 🌸🌼🎉 Only kidding. Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren't women at all, but men, every last one of them. In passing the Scottish Hate Crime Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls. The new legislation is wide open to abuse by activists who wish to silence those of us speaking out about the dangers of eliminating women's and girls’ single-sex spaces, the nonsense made of crime data if violent and sexual assaults committed by men are recorded as female crimes, the grotesque unfairness of allowing males to compete in female sports, the injustice of women’s jobs, honours and opportunities being taken by trans-identified men, and the reality and immutability of biological sex. For several years now, Scottish women have been pressured by their government and members of the police force to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears, repudiate biological facts and embrace a neo-religious concept of gender that is unprovable and untestable. The re-definition of 'woman' to include every man who declares himself one has already had serious consequences for women's and girls’ rights and safety in Scotland, with the strongest impact felt, as ever, by the most vulnerable, including female prisoners and rape survivors. It is impossible to accurately describe or tackle the reality of violence and sexual violence committed against women and girls, or address the current assault on women’s and girls’ rights, unless we are allowed to call a man a man. Freedom of speech and belief are at an end in Scotland if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal. I'm currently out of the country, but if what I've written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment. If you agree with the views set out in this tweet, please retweet it. #ArrestMe #AprilFools #HateCrimeActScotland 11/X
4,061
29,218
2,601
92,769
6,015,355
David Dorrell retweeted
Hamas official Osama Hamdan in an interiew with Al-Liwaa newspaper says if there was a way to turn back time, Hamas would carry out Oct 7th attack again. Said strategy was to prevent Israel from being a 'natural entity' in the region.
42
325
132
630
451,000
David Dorrell retweeted
I'm Palestinian but I was angry with Hamas after the October 7 massacre. I knew it would lead to war. Yesterday I watched an anti-Zionist protest demanding the dismantling of Israel take over London. This is the same ideology that caused the massacre in the first place.
278
2,238
230
11,328
668,210
Junior goes on a rant that is supposed to be about Desantis, but he misreads his script: “Trump has the personality of a mortician, and the energy that makes Jeb Bush look an Olympian.”
2,857
3,727
1,832
17,751
4,648,399
David Dorrell retweeted
I know Vox is pretty much as far away from actual journalism as you can get but even so saying "Let’s let her speak for herself" then not including more than a couple of sentences of her own words is really quite something. > vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-…
29
125
50
715
68,840
Wow, someone has really done their research! “…transwomen are 5 times more likely than other men, and 566 times more likely than women, to commit sexual offences. That’s not a sample, not a poll… it’s a hard count” wingsoverscotland.com/the-ro…
72
1,528
138
3,728
182,521
David Dorrell retweeted
Getting to the end, but I'm not always systematic, so I'll go back and forth a bit. But this is a very striking paragraph:
14
19
3
80
I don't understand how people can make the claims in this article. Whether we like it or not, there are performance differences between men & women. If we eliminated sex-based sport, there would be zero women in elite sport. That would be a travesty. theatlantic.com/culture/arch…
142
516
128
3,577
David Dorrell retweeted
There are quite a few woke lefties that don't understand why the term "woke" has become a pejorative term. The utterly superb @andrewdoyle_com explains why...
152
990
127
3,741
David Dorrell retweeted
This is perhaps the best article written by a politician that I have ever read thetimes.co.uk/article/0df1a…
83
488
45
1,912
David Dorrell retweeted
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nadhim Zahawi, has been sending threatening letters to people investigating his tax affairs. The letters are designed to intimidate & say they're confidential and can't be published. One was sent to me. I am publishing it. taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/07/22/…
634
10,076
1,131
24,124