Best Of

So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…

So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn
https://www.thesun.co.uk/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.

The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.

It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/

https://www.thetimes.com/?gclsrc=aw.ds&&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=1463632778&adgroupid=56048139559&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=719979788324&utm_term=the times&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=1463632778&gbraid=0AAAAADiwoSDGObQ6JjGbnLXnPlnhUqsPP&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-KGJs-XHkwMVV5BQBh3JWyWjEAAYASAAEgJcEvD_BwE

But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.

Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.

“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.

At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran

My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.

The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.

If they want to retain their funding model.

I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content

The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped

Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry

The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1921 the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV

So why is it leading the bulletins on internal gossip with no actual details?

If the BBC wants to retain the LF, it needs to act like an impartial public service broadcaster.

Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.

Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...

Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.

Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.

Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.

The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.

Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.

Indeed and we don't.

So we are more protected, besides fiscally.

So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.

And how would you replace the tax revenue?

The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.

Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.

General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.

So specifically which tax would you increase instead?

I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.

I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.

Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.

You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.

So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..

You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..

I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.

Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.

But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.

Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?

I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.

It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.

It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.

And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.

So be it. It is the right thing to do.

It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.

Would you apply that to benefits recipients ?

It’s income. It’s feared lf tax and NI.

Bart has fixed the problem with his simple solution.

The technicalities that make his simple solution impractical aren't things he cares about - he's got cheaper fuel so can drive more and consume more of the very limited simply...

It would be sensible (politically) to protect basic rate pensioners (under 50k income) by having a separate rate of the combined IT and NI for pensioners. Equal to the old rate.

So, at least initially, basic rate tax paying pensioners would pay no more than they do now.

At which point what is the point of the change in tax, who exactly will be paying the extra tax revenue - it would literally just be BTL landlords earning less than £50,000 a year which has to be a very niche set of people.

Gig economy stuff. Plus higher rate pensioners. Initially.

Boil the frog slowly. In sections.

You think your typical gig economy worker pays tax - rollin...

There is ~350bn of taxable income per annum not subject to NICs.

Of that 50-60% is basic rate pensioners.

Unlike Malmesbury, I would tax basic rate pensioners the same as basic rate employees . . . If it is good enough for those working for a living, it is good enough for those who are not.

However even if you exclude basic rate pensioners, it still unites a significant chunk that is not under NICs currently.

Including over 100bn of non pensioner income.

Where exactly did you get that figure from because I have a suspicion it hides a very nasty surprise (for you) and the vast majority of that 350bn is made up of people's individual tax allowance...

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-incomes-statistics-for-the-tax-year-2022-to-2023/personal-incomes-statistics-2022-to-2023-summary-statistics

Over £1.3 trillion, almost £1.4 trillion, in income subject to income tax of which less than £1 trillion comes from employment.

So you don’t count self employment as employment then?

The rest of the money is pensioners, interest, rent and dividends

Interest and dividends are taxed via a different tax regime to income tax so what you are left with is landlords and pensioners

Again it doesn’t raise the money you think it does and given how quickly you are happy to give pensioners a overly complex tax break compared to keeping the money separate it doesn’t actually raise any real money at all,

The government data did not count it as employment, not me.

And the question was not about employment, but about income not subject to NICs . . . and what proportion of self employed income is actually subject to NICs at the exact same rate as employed income?

Everyone earning the same income should be liable to the same taxes, no matter how it is earned.

Dividends are taxed in a particular way because the money has already been taxed once via corporation tax.
Self employed pay different levels of National Insurance for long standing reasons.

You don't seem to grasp that the only people who you will be taxing are pensioners and you've already said any pensioner earning less than £50,000 is going to be exempt so I can't imagine many pensioners will be paying it....

Basically you've got a scheme that looks great but when you've finished the carve outs you've left no money being raised..

No, I would tax all the same. Including dividends and the self-employed.

I would simplify the tax system so people can not shelter their income in corporations and claim it as dividends at a lower rate of tax or all the other dodges people come up with. All forms of income have been taxed previously.

The long standing reasons for self employment NICs being lower are not very good, since employment related benefits come from the employer and not the Exchequer.

You seem to think I would keep the status quo, when I have repeatedly said I would not.

Everyone on same income should pay the same rate of tax, no exceptions.

And I’m pointing out that your changes wouldn’t result in any extra tax revenue because our tax system had been created over the past 100 years to maximizes (within certain limits) total tax take while encouraging particular behaviors (saving money and a certain amount of entrepreneurship)

No, it has been created over the past 100 years to satisfy political agendas.

Hence all the carve outs to satisfy vested interests.

Carve outs we can not afford with a budget deficit of over a hundred billion pounds per annum, and with ever higher taxes on ever fewer people.

Taxes should be low but paid by all. No exceptions, no carve outs. If that hits your votes, so be it.

So we’re two days from launching man around the moon, there’s wars going on in Iran and Ukraine, but the BBC are leading the news on their own DJ being sacked for misconduct…

So is the Sun and the Mail, the wars in Iran and Ukraine will still be going on for the rest of the year most likely, I expect the average viewer or reader will be more interested in Scott Mills sacking today. We have already done man on the moon, man on Mars or Man arrives in next galaxy might be interesting but man around the moon is a bit of a yawn
https://www.thesun.co.uk/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Let the tabloids run on tabloid stuff.

The BBC’s introspective obsession with itself will be its downfall.

It is also second story on the Telegraph and a lead story on the Times

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/

https://www.thetimes.com/?gclsrc=aw.ds&&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=1463632778&adgroupid=56048139559&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=719979788324&utm_term=the times&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=1463632778&gbraid=0AAAAADiwoSDGObQ6JjGbnLXnPlnhUqsPP&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-KGJs-XHkwMVV5BQBh3JWyWjEAAYASAAEgJcEvD_BwE

But we expect the BBC, “Thanks to the unique way it’s funded”, to be better than that and not lead on gossip.

Oh, so our DJ was fired for unspecified “reasons”, is not a leading news article, at least not unless there’s a lot of detail of the “reasons”.

“The guy who led the broadcast of the Queen’s funeral being charged with possession of CP” is arguably a story, but still probably not the top story on a busy day. His conviction is probably the top story, as is the leniency of his suspended sentence.

At the end of the day they will give stories that get the most clicks on their website the highest order and today I can guarantee it will be Mills getting more clicks than the latest news on Iran

My whole point is that the BBC should have no interest in clicks and likes. They should be above all that.

The BBC should be the only ones leading on Iran when everyone else leads on tabloid crap.

If they want to retain their funding model.

I expect the new DG, who has come straight from Google, doesn't and wants paid subscription for the iplayer and some news online content and maybe even ads online too and on TV for big viewing figure programmes like Strictly in return for maybe no license fee needed for BBC online content

The licence fee is an unjust tax and should be scrapped

Let the BBC compete as others do in the media industry

The license fee was originally set up to fund programmes of high culture, serious drama and science and current affairs and history programmes. That is what is should fund and if the BBC funds more of its online programmes via subscription and some TV programmes via ads then the license fee funds could also be shared with other freeview broadcasters like ITV, C4 and C5. After all when the license fee was introduced in 1923 for radio and 1946 for TV the BBC was the only broadcaster, we are now in a multiple broadcaster world, online as well as radio and TV with many rival commercial broadcasters to the BBC

Nope - it comes from the 1Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904 which allowed the Postmaster General to charge for the issuing of licenses permitting the "experimental" receipt of radio transmissions.

After WW1 it the Post Office suggested the creation of the BBC and used the money from the licenses to pay for the BBC as a whole - whether it was high culture or just the 1920's version of a phone in (yes it didn't exist but that's not the point).

Yes so it started funding the BBC from the 1920s

So what - times change and so has broadcast media

The licence fee is simply absurd

No, what it was set up to fund ie programmes of high culture, science and current affairs and serious drama are needed now as much as then. Just license fee revenues should be shared with all broadcasters on freeview to fund such programmes not just the BBC and let the BBC use subscription to fund its online programmes and have some TV ads for populist programmes like Strictly, Gladiators and Eastenders

Simply the licence fee is not justifyable