That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.
Because all this humongous spending has to be paid for, one way or another.
I'm waiting with trepidation, because I am hosting a budget reaction event this afternoon and a client seminar on Friday, and so far there is really not much of interest to talk about, good or bad, on taxes. Particularly for corporates. The whole thing seemingly being pre-announced makes the job of presenting something interesting rather harder too (whatever others imply, this is much more heavily pre-briefed than any budget in recent history).
There is reasonable good news on public finances since March which means Sunak does have some flexibility not to raise taxes significantly. Remember there have already been 2 big tax raising announcements this year already: the CT rate rise to 25% and the health & social care levy.
Expect less and less money to local government though. The instinct of this government since 2010 has repeatedly been to cut money to councils where possible. They were already running on vapour and will soon be on their knees. That plus general neglect of the education budget is not good news if you are a LA trying to run primary schools while keeping the bin collections and road repairs going.
Most public services are showing strain in one way or another. The trouble with the kind of soft eco-socialism that this government practices is that you pretty quickly run out of other people's money. You hit the economy with high taxes and eco-regulations and spend like a drunken sailor and then are surprised when the "green jobs" you promise never appear and the productive sector shrinks.
My biggest worry is that with ever more centralisation of power and spending - and this is something that's been going on since at least the 1980s - we get one size fits all policy which ends up at the whim of national politicians and either completely overlooks local needs, or lends itself to pork barrel spending in marginal constituencies. Then we get this uneven growth in devolved administrations with wildly different degrees of autonomy and influence, most of which have very little impact on the local things that really matter like schooling, infrastructure, housing and social services.
The moment you implement real devolution in this country, however, you immediately get whines about "postcode lotteries".
That slogan is like "concreting over the countryside" or "24 hours to save the NHS" - it has no relation to reality, but lazy politicians and journalists (75% of the former and 95% of the latter) use it as a substitute for serious thought.
“Taking the knee” is pointless if people are forced to do it.
Just let people make their own choice ffs.
Indeed, Colin Kaepernick & Quintin De Kock should both be able to make their own choices on this and not be blackballed by their respective employers/organisations.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
We have big taxes on unoccupied residential property.
I have a couple I have not been able to rent out due to probate delays at the HMRC. Have cost thousands.
On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.
You could bring in the big charge for unoccupied residential property, whilst decreasing HB gradually. I think in some London boroughs it is over a grand a month ! LLs will want to keep their properties occupied..
What's interesting to me is that retrospectively one of the Stanleys involved (Rous) stated that it was left entirely up to the players while the other (Matthews) vehemently denies this. Decades of hindsight is a wonderful thing.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.
It isn't paying for a landlord's mortgage; it's paying for (usually part of) a tenants rent.
Do you have a similar objection to the part of Universal Credit spent on food paying for supermarkets' advertising or borrowing to buy their business premises? Or Tesco's shareholders' dividends?
On UC, I think the original taper as designed by IDS, was around 50-55%.
On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand: - No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice) - de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
All the Labour frontbench at PMQs except Ed Miliband who is asking the questions wearing facemasks.
However a more mixed picture on the Conservative benches. Sunak and Raab both wearing facemasks, Rees-Mogg and Truss are not (and Boris obviously not to answer the questions)
On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand: - No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice) - de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
Not sure you can any more assume he was rude about it, than you can assume any other member of the team actually believes in it rather than just protecting their career by playing along, now that this has happened.
All the Labour frontbench at PMQs except Ed Miliband who is asking the questions wearing facemasks.
However a more mixed picture on the Conservative benches. Sunak and Raab both wearing facemasks, Rees-Mogg and Truss are not (and Boris obviously not to answer the questions)
More important is Starmer absent, no Rayner, and who knows who will respond to the budget but Rachel Reeves would be sensible
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
We have big taxes on unoccupied residential property.
I have a couple I have not been able to rent out due to probate delays. Have cost thousands.
Fear not, I'd have an exemption where it's legally not possible to rent a property out. If there are large taxes already on unoccupied houses, why is housing benefit needed at all ? You have to rent the house to someone...
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.
It isn't paying for a landlord's mortgage; it's paying for (usually part of) a tenants rent.
Do you have a similar objection to the part of Universal Credit spent on food paying for supermarket's advertising? Or Tesco's shareholders' dividends?
But the tenant is only allowed to claim the allowance if they rent and not for their own mortgage. Even if their own mortgage would be cheaper.
If the recipient is to be spending the money they receive on housing they should spend it however they choose. Why exclude potentially cheaper mortgages and compel them to have more expensive rent instead?
If the UC spent on food was only able to be received if it went on more expensive meals prepared by restaurants like McDonalds and not if they were buying their own groceries and paying for it themselves then absolutely I'd oppose that completely.
Let people choose for themselves how to spend their money for food or housing, not compel them down certain paths.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.
It isn't paying for a landlord's mortgage; it's paying for (usually part of) a tenants rent.
Do you have a similar objection to the part of Universal Credit spent on food paying for supermarkets' advertising or borrowing to buy their business premises? Or Tesco's shareholders' dividends?
On UC, I think the original taper as designed by IDS, was around 50-55%.
What would happen to the houses and flats if Housing Benefit was cut significantly?
1. The rents would reduce 2. House prices would reduce 3. They would be relatively more attractive to homeowners than landlords.
None of those are bad things and the houses and flats would still be people's homes.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Could be made to work if the housing benefit element was reckoned to contribute to shared ownership - say the amount received through housing benefit divided by total amount paid in mortgage payments times proft when the house is sold (or passed on after death). So if housing benefit paid half of the paid down mortgage then half of the profit (after paying off whatever is left of the mortgage) goes back to government on sale. Otherwise I don't see it flying that the housing benefit goes to fund property windfalls (I know it arguably does at the moment, but for the landlord).
Probably some good reasons why that would be a very bad idea...
On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand: - No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice) - de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
Agreed on both counts. Without knowing more detail, it's impossible to say whether this was defensible or not - and I suspect an unbiased account will now be pretty difficult to obtain.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I think the larger problem highlighted is that living costs are so high/the minimum wage so low that people working full-time on the minimum wage are not able to support themselves, and so receive a subsidy from the government.
That's a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the economy.
On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand: - No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice) - de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
Agreed on both counts. Without knowing more detail, it's impossible to say whether this was defensible or not - and I suspect an unbiased account will now be pretty difficult to obtain.
If there is more to this than simply de Kock refusing to take the knee, then we need to be told. Otherwise people are just projecting what they wish to be true because they know that dropping a player for such a reason is utterly indefensible.
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand: - No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice) - de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
Not sure you can any more assume he was rude about it, than you can assume any other member of the team actually believes in it rather than just protecting their career by playing along, now that this has happened.
No, I can't assume anything. I wasn't trying to do so - as noted, I don't know what has happened. He might have ben badly wronged or there may be other things that have happened about which we know nothing.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I think the larger problem highlighted is that living costs are so high/the minimum wage so low that people working full-time on the minimum wage are not able to support themselves, and so receive a subsidy from the government.
That's a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the economy.
Its not necessarily the case.
A childless couple working full time won't be eligible to a penny of benefits as far as I'm aware.
Its the state offering support to children that has created the large benefits bill. Plus a nation we don't want people on unemployment benefits to starve and end up on the streets, so those who are working aren't just ideally working to support themselves - but the comparison ought to be that they should be better off than those who are not working.
If the people who are working get enough to support themselves but because the benefits have been withdrawn in one fell swoop are not any better off than those not working, is that an improvement?
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Where are Rayner and Rachel Reeves
Labour seem to be in chaos today
They do but this is a great opportunity for Phillipson and she seems pretty smart.
Be interesting to see how she does.
The Shad Chancellor has a prime spot later in the debate (tomorrow?). Which makes sense to keep to, since they will have had time to go through the small print a bit by then.
And besides; Rayner is no more Starmer's No 2 than Raab is BoJo's.
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
I think the larger problem highlighted is that living costs are so high/the minimum wage so low that people working full-time on the minimum wage are not able to support themselves, and so receive a subsidy from the government.
That's a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the economy.
Its not necessarily the case.
A childless couple working full time won't be eligible to a penny of benefits as far as I'm aware.
Its the state offering support to children that has created the large benefits bill. Plus a nation we don't want people on unemployment benefits to starve and end up on the streets, so those who are working aren't just ideally working to support themselves - but the comparison ought to be that they should be better off than those who are not working.
If the people who are working get enough to support themselves but because the benefits have been withdrawn in one fell swoop are not any better off than those not working, is that an improvement?
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Only if they're not vaccinated surely?
Isolation for vaccinated contacts was dropped months ago.
And if they're not vaccinated, that should be a concern.
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Seems Rachel is responding
You said you were keen on her earlier, but I didn't realise you were on first-name terms!
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Seems Rachel is responding
You said you were keen on her earlier, but I didn't realise you were on first-name terms!
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Seems Rachel is responding
You said you were keen on her earlier, but I didn't realise you were on first-name terms!
I think she is the best in labour at present
She has some credibility which is in relatively short supply for LAB at the moment.
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Very good opportunity for Reeves today. Reminds me of the moment in Blair & Brown when Gordon stepped in to deliver the response when a junior shadow treasury spokesman.
Where Boris is shambolic, Rishi is spruce. Boris looks necrotic, Rishi simply gleams. We know Boris is a rake; Rishi is fanatically uxorious. Boris is all appetites: embarrassingly lardy. But Rishi is all discipline, Peloton-ed every morning
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.
And who pays attention to the debate of the next couple of days/
The initial response to the Budget is broadcast and what gets attention. If the Shadow Chancellor isn't up to the job then that's a real concern.
Climate activists have stormed and are occupying the Science Museum in protest at them accepting sponsorship money from fossil fuel companies, or some other such guff.
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.
I would have expected Miliband to do the budget response after taking on the job of PMQs, but it matters less who responds to the budget than that they do it well. One of the toughest jobs in British politics.
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Who?
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves is
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.
Only if they're not vaccinated surely?
Isolation for vaccinated contacts was dropped months ago.
And if they're not vaccinated, that should be a concern.
Would be rather amusing though, especially from a party that fetishizes the NHS.
Comments
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Just let people make their own choice ffs.
That slogan is like "concreting over the countryside" or "24 hours to save the NHS" - it has no relation to reality, but lazy politicians and journalists (75% of the former and 95% of the latter) use it as a substitute for serious thought.
I have a couple I have not been able to rent out due to probate delays at the HMRC. Have cost thousands.
LLs will want to keep their properties occupied..
The Leader of the Opposition is isolating
'Tory MP compares England footballers taking the knee to Nazi salute'
https://tinyurl.com/4cnrd46f
What's interesting to me is that retrospectively one of the Stanleys involved (Rous) stated that it was left entirely up to the players while the other (Matthews) vehemently denies this. Decades of hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Do you have a similar objection to the part of Universal Credit spent on food paying for supermarkets' advertising or borrowing to buy their business premises? Or Tesco's shareholders' dividends?
On UC, I think the original taper as designed by IDS, was around 50-55%.
- No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice)
- de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
I am so foul mouthed my phone now autocorrects ducking to begin with f rather than the other way round
However a more mixed picture on the Conservative benches. Sunak and Raab both wearing facemasks, Rees-Mogg and Truss are not (and Boris obviously not to answer the questions)
If the recipient is to be spending the money they receive on housing they should spend it however they choose. Why exclude potentially cheaper mortgages and compel them to have more expensive rent instead?
If the UC spent on food was only able to be received if it went on more expensive meals prepared by restaurants like McDonalds and not if they were buying their own groceries and paying for it themselves then absolutely I'd oppose that completely.
Let people choose for themselves how to spend their money for food or housing, not compel them down certain paths.
Isn't this the budget?
1. The rents would reduce
2. House prices would reduce
3. They would be relatively more attractive to homeowners than landlords.
None of those are bad things and the houses and flats would still be people's homes.
Or he is indeed sidelining her
Probably some good reasons why that would be a very bad idea...
Without knowing more detail, it's impossible to say whether this was defensible or not - and I suspect an unbiased account will now be pretty difficult to obtain.
That's a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the economy.
Labour seem to be in chaos today
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
Be interesting to see how she does.
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
15m
Confirmed:
@RachelReevesMP
will do Labour's Budget response
A childless couple working full time won't be eligible to a penny of benefits as far as I'm aware.
Its the state offering support to children that has created the large benefits bill. Plus a nation we don't want people on unemployment benefits to starve and end up on the streets, so those who are working aren't just ideally working to support themselves - but the comparison ought to be that they should be better off than those who are not working.
If the people who are working get enough to support themselves but because the benefits have been withdrawn in one fell swoop are not any better off than those not working, is that an improvement?
Tom Harwood
@tomhfh
Less than an hour ago Covid-positive Starmer posted this photo with Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson.
Sienna Rodgers
@siennamarla
·
6m
Angela Rayner couldn't do PMQs as she is still on bereavement leave.
And besides; Rayner is no more Starmer's No 2 than Raab is BoJo's.
Isolation for vaccinated contacts was dropped months ago.
And if they're not vaccinated, that should be a concern.
Bloody virtue-signalling Tories. Let's hope Rees-Mogg disowns then for not being sufficiently convivial.
If you average these things out, 2021 isn't going to make up for 2020 in the UK, but it will for the OECD average.
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/recovery-dashboard?country=OECD
Rees-Mogg and Truss still taking a libertarian line on masks though and were maskless (though both have been double jabbed)
She’s right, that the briefing has got silly.
Get on with it rishi
https://unherd.com/2021/10/why-rishi-sunak-will-win/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=f6f7730f53&mc_eid=836634e34b
Where Boris is shambolic, Rishi is spruce. Boris looks necrotic, Rishi simply gleams. We know Boris is a rake; Rishi is fanatically uxorious. Boris is all appetites: embarrassingly lardy. But Rishi is all discipline, Peloton-ed every morning
When opportunity arises, grab it with both hands.
Go for it Rach!
The initial response to the Budget is broadcast and what gets attention. If the Shadow Chancellor isn't up to the job then that's a real concern.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/london-protesters-storm-science-museum-and-plan-to-occupy-venue-all-night/ar-AAPYSjI?ocid=entnewsntp