Author name: 胡思

The current political and fiscal landscape in the UK presents a stark and perplexing contradiction: the government publicly advocates for a reduction in immigration while quietly relying on high immigration levels to maintain fiscal balance. The disparity between rhetoric and reality ultimately undermines the credibility of public finances.

The Labour Party criticizes the Conservative government for opening the floodgates to immigration, resulting in record net migration levels. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made reducing immigration a priority. The latest data indicates that net migration fell to 204,000 by June, which the government describes as a step toward its target, emphasizing the need to ‘do more’ and continue to push downward. Visa conditions have been tightened repeatedly, leading to a significant decline in the issuance of work, study, and family visas, while industries reliant on overseas labor have begun to scale back recruitment. If this trend continues, it is not difficult to foresee net migration approaching zero in a few years, or even briefly turning into a net outflow.

However, fiscal forecasts tell a different story. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) continues to assume in its latest budget that net migration will rebound and stabilize at around 340,000 annually, calculating that new immigrants will reduce borrowing by approximately £7.4 billion each year during the forecast period. This assumption equates to the belief that the UK can simultaneously achieve two mutually exclusive goals: tightening immigration sources while attracting more people than currently enter. Both cannot hold true at the same time.

This contradiction is not limited to the Labour Party. For years, the Conservative Party has vocally aimed to reduce net migration to ‘below 100,000’; the Reform Party has even adopted the far-right rhetoric of ‘remigration,’ advocating for the expulsion of certain settled groups in the UK. Political discourse has become increasingly heated, yet no one is willing to address the underlying reality: with a birth rate of approximately 1.4, a stagnating or shrinking working-age population, and chronic staff shortages in the NHS and social care, a significant reduction in immigration will only lead to a shrinking tax base, slower economic growth, and greater difficulty in maintaining public services.

The iron law of the UK’s demographic structure is simple: natural growth no longer contributes significantly to population increases, and the expansion of the overall population and workforce largely depends on immigration. Current economic growth and fiscal revenue similarly rely, in part, on the work, taxes, and consumption of new immigrants. The OBR’s projections are based on earlier assumptions of relatively high net migration, which have now diverged from the latest sharply declining data. Without a substantial influx of new immigrants, the fiscal space outlined in the budget will evaporate; conversely, if there are large numbers of new immigrants, it will contradict the government’s current political objectives.

If the government continues to implement a stringent immigration reduction plan, maintaining net migration at 340,000 will be nearly impossible. At that point, a fiscal gap will inevitably emerge, forcing the government to make difficult choices between raising taxes, cutting spending, or increasing borrowing. This is a contradiction that will reach its limits sooner or later.

Immigration is not a panacea, but in an aging society, it is a critical variable for sustaining the economy and public finances. The issue is not whether immigration numbers should decrease, but whether the UK is willing to face the truth: fewer immigrants mean accepting reduced fiscal capacity and slower growth; better public services cannot be achieved while simultaneously pursuing isolationist policies and expecting others to foot the bill.

In the UK, most households rely on gas boilers for heating and hot water. This quietly operating machine accounts for a significant portion of household energy expenditure, yet many have never adjusted the water temperature, resulting in years of wasted money and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, simply lowering the flow temperature a bit can keep homes warm while substantially reducing costs.

Government guidelines are clear: for system boilers with a hot water tank, the flow temperature should be set at 60°C to prevent Legionnaires’ disease; for combi boilers, which do not have a tank and carry a lower risk, the hot water temperature can be set even lower, such as 55°C. The risk of Legionnaires’ disease is already low in typical homes, especially since Hong Kong residents tend to shower daily, leading to frequent water use and preventing hot water from stagnating in pipes. The real high-risk settings are large buildings like offices, shopping malls, and hotels, where complex piping and uneven water usage patterns make stagnation more likely.

Many believe that lowering the flow temperature will make indoor spaces uncomfortably cool, but this is a misconception. For most UK homes, a heating flow temperature of 55°C to 60°C is sufficient for daily needs. In rare cases where insulation is poor or radiators are undersized, it may feel less warm, but simply adjusting the dial higher poses no risk.

Why do many boiler dials feature an ‘e’, typically set around 67°C? This is a relic from the past, marking the ‘economy mode’ based on the thinking of non-condensing boilers: heat quickly at high temperatures and then shut off with the thermostat, believing that ‘high heat on, quick off’ is more gas-efficient. However, most modern boilers are condensing types, which can recover heat from the flue gases if the return water temperature is low enough, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, the ‘e’ at 67°C is outdated today.

A more practical reason is that gas engineers often raise the flow temperature during annual inspections to allow radiators to warm up more quickly for testing, but they frequently forget to reset it afterward. As a result, many households mistakenly believe that higher temperatures represent the ‘correct setting’, leading to increased gas consumption year after year.

Adjusting the temperature is straightforward: simply turn the dial. Typically, the boiler panel will have separate temperature settings for ‘heating’ and ‘hot water’. Set the heating to around 55°C or 60°C, and adjust the hot water according to personal needs, with the option to revert at any time.

How much can one save? For a typical three-bedroom UK household, lowering the heating flow temperature from 67°C to 55°C could conservatively reduce gas usage by about 6% to 10%. If annual gas expenses are around £1,000, this translates to annual savings of approximately £60 to £100; the more gas consumed, the greater the savings. Coupled with an appropriate heating schedule and room temperature settings, actual savings could be even higher, with no noticeable difference in indoor comfort.

When discussing heating, one cannot overlook TRVs (thermostatic radiator valves). Many people feel their radiators are not warm enough and turn the TRV to 5, mistakenly believing that higher settings yield more heat. In reality, the TRV numbers indicate the target room temperature, with 3 roughly equating to 20°C, which is comfortable enough. If a radiator is occasionally cold, it does not necessarily mean the heating is off; it could simply mean the room has reached the desired temperature or that the boiler is temporarily paused according to the schedule. Radiators do not need to be hot all day, as this would only waste energy.

While this article discusses how to use gas boilers more efficiently, in the long run, heat pumps remain a superior solution for heating and hot water. Gas boilers achieve a maximum efficiency of about 90%, whereas heat pumps can deliver three to four times that, outputting more heat from the same unit of electricity, far surpassing traditional equipment in efficiency.

Lowering the dial does not change habits or reduce warmth, yet it can save money, gas, and emissions. If millions of households are willing to lower their flow temperatures slightly, the national gas consumption would significantly decline, and your winter would remain just as warm, only more economical, contributing to the protection of the planet.

In the UK, most households own and use a dishwasher daily; many Hongkongers even jokingly refer to it as a ‘family harmoniser’. Unfortunately, a significant number of Hongkongers persist in handwashing their dishes after moving to the UK, believing that ‘washing by hand is cleaner’. This results in unnecessary effort, waste, and a complete mismatch with the cost structure of living in the UK.

First, let’s discuss water usage. Water bills in the UK are expensive, approximately five times that of Hong Kong. Handwashing dishes consumes 30–40 litres of clean water per session, and in winter, one must first run cold water before hot water is available. In contrast, an A-rated dishwasher requires only 9–12 litres for an entire cycle. Handwashing daily wastes an additional 20–30 litres, easily leading to extra water bills amounting to several dozen pounds annually. In the UK, handwashing dishes merely pours money down the drain.

Next, consider energy consumption. Using more hot water naturally leads to higher gas or electricity usage, and during handwashing, the water temperature drops quickly. If the water is too hot, it burns the hands, forcing one to use lukewarm water that is both energy-inefficient and less effective at removing grease. Dishwashers, however, can maintain temperatures above 60°C for extended periods, and the combination of high temperatures and powerful water circulation ensures thorough sterilisation and grease removal, far surpassing the effectiveness of handwashing. The common belief that ‘dishwashers don’t clean well’ is merely an outdated notion; the cleaning capabilities of machines are far more reliable than several rounds of handwashing.

Another deeply ingrained myth is the belief that dishes must be rinsed before being placed in the machine. In reality, this is entirely unnecessary. The enzymes in dishwasher tablets are specifically designed to break down grease; one only needs to scrape off large food residues without rinsing. If additional cleanliness is desired, a small amount of dishwasher powder or liquid can be added to the pre-wash compartment or directly in the machine. This allows the initial water flow to soften stains, enabling a more thorough clean during the main wash.

Time is also a cost factor. Handwashing a meal’s worth of dishes—washing, rinsing, drying, and putting away—takes at least ten minutes. With two meals a day, that adds up to an hour and a half per week. A dishwasher, on the other hand, simply requires loading the dishes, pressing a button, and leaving. The true savings are not just in water and electricity, but in life itself. Household chores often lead to disputes; by letting machines take over, unnecessary tensions are naturally reduced, which is why dishwashers are dubbed ‘family harmonisers’.

To maximise the efficiency of a dishwasher, maintenance is not complicated. In areas with hard water, descaling every three months can maintain heating efficiency. Beyond that, little else is required; dishwashers are designed to make life easier.

Environmental protection begins with daily actions. The kitchen is a major consumer of household water; if all households in the country switched from handwashing to dishwashing, the water and electricity saved would offset some industrial emissions. Dishwashers are not a luxury but a rational choice; handwashing is not diligent but stubborn. In the UK, where water, electricity, and time are costly, entrusting dishwashing to machines is the most economical and civilised way of living.

Hong Kong is renowned worldwide for its simple tax system, yet its former colonial power, the United Kingdom, has taken a completely opposite path. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) criticizes that the latest budget not only failed to simplify the tax system but instead made it more fragmented, harder to understand, and more challenging to determine who ultimately bears the tax burden.

First, consider income tax. The current tax rates in the UK are clearly divided into three brackets: 20%, 40%, and 45%. For many years, salaries, rents, and interest have all been taxed progressively at the same rates. While this system is not ideal, at least the calculations were straightforward. The new system, however, imposes an additional 2% tax on rents, interest, and dividends, while salaries and pensions remain unaffected, and capital gains tax (CGT) retains its original two-tier structure. This appears to be a mere adjustment, but income tax in the UK is calculated not by type of income but by ‘total income’ filling the tax brackets progressively. Once a certain type of income is taxed, the entire structure shifts, making calculations increasingly convoluted.

Take an example to illustrate this confusion: an individual earns a salary of £40,000 and has an additional £20,000 from rents, interest, and dividends. With a total income of £60,000, the salary fills the basic tax bracket first, meaning that the £20,000 must be split into two segments: the portion within the basic tax bracket is taxed at 20% + 2%, while the portion within the higher tax bracket is taxed at 40% + 2%. Interest adds further complexity, as the tax-free allowance depends on total income, which could be £1,000, £500, or even £0. When income reaches £60,000, only £500 remains, which must first be deducted as exempt before recalculating within the tax brackets. Dividends already have their own tax rates (8.75%, 33.75%, 39.35%), and now face an additional uniform 2% tax, intertwining with other income taxes; CGT is calculated separately at either 20% or 24%. The result is that the same sum of money may traverse multiple tax brackets, apply various rates, and deduct different allowances. Even local taxpayers find this bewildering, let alone foreign investors.

Next, consider the mansion tax. The UK originally had only one local property tax, the council tax, which, while based on outdated valuations from 1991, at least constituted a single system. The government has now introduced an additional mansion tax alongside the old system, effectively operating two separate logics: the old system based on outdated valuations and the new system based on current market value. This has significantly increased administrative costs and further complicated the system, yet it does not address the real issues. Why not take this opportunity to conduct a comprehensive revaluation and modernize the council tax into a clear property tax that reflects current property prices?

The tax system becomes increasingly fragmented, and the root cause is not technical but political. Politicians lack vision and courage, fearing to confront entrenched interests and offend voters, opting instead for seemingly light measures that complicate the system further. As a result, direction is lost, principles are abandoned, and the system becomes more chaotic. Even basic tax matters require expert decoding, making discussions about attracting foreign investment and promoting growth seem futile.