Had it. Wasn't that impressed by it. Not had it again since.
I'd rather have good sushi.
We had caviar on two of our trips to Russia years ago, but neither of us were impressed
From the Russian side of the family, I've heard that the combination of high prices and foreigners has attracted the inevitable. The crooks are faking caviar in Russia by the ton...
Can you even get the real wild caspian stuff any more? It’s all farmed now…
There is a sturgeon farm in Garforth, just east of Leeds.
I've been reflecting on the Budget, and have concluded that for the vast majority of the British public it is a complete non-event, with precisely zero ramifications for household budgets at a time of rising costs. By this, I mean that there is very little, if any, tangible impact from the measures announced in the here and now, which is unusual for a Budget. This is not the case for those on the minimum wage or UC, but for everybody else, I think it's "so what?" - particularly for the 'squeezed middle'. Even the alcohol duty changes, which I think are not very significant actually, don't come into effect until 2023. For voters, most of the measures are a bit abstract.
So, the budget is either:
a) clever politics by Rishi - steady as she goes, or b) a missed opportunity to make his stamp as an interesting and innovative Chancellor.
At the moment, I'm running with the latter.
I think you are missing that benefits and pensions will rise by 3.1% on the 1st April and with the NLW rising by 6.6% to £9.50 then earnings in April will see quite an uplift but of course inflation will be in the mix
And the fact the tax increases were announced earlier
I have to say the politics of this by Rishi was extraordinary getting the tax rises out of the way, leaking good bits to the press, than a barnstorming speech, and though he was rebuked by the speaker and deputy, he looks a formidable politician
To be honest he overshadowed Boris completely and for me the change cannot come soon enough
Had it. Wasn't that impressed by it. Not had it again since.
I'd rather have good sushi.
We had caviar on two of our trips to Russia years ago, but neither of us were impressed
From the Russian side of the family, I've heard that the combination of high prices and foreigners has attracted the inevitable. The crooks are faking caviar in Russia by the ton...
Can you even get the real wild caspian stuff any more? It’s all farmed now…
There is a sturgeon farm in Garforth, just east of Leeds.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.
If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?
Maybe because Brown left the country with no money so they couldn't be afforded then?
Plus it was different people then. Sunak wasn't even an MP until 2015 let alone Chancellor.
Or because Osbourne didn’t have a clue and did a number of things out of spite.
After all he thought the equivalent of a 75% tax on those earning just above the bare minimum (I.e those on universal credit) was fine when even IDS said it was too high.
I don't think reporting or polling on budgets is ever particularly useful, since most of what is said on both sides is just partisan cliches, most of the 'initial takes' are prepackaged praise or criticisms, or generic fluff, and as with most political events the public don't really notice pretty significant things even when told about them, and the plans might fall due to some inconsequential detail that gets focused on for reasons no one really knows.
That said, the BBC main page headline of 'Sunak unveils help for low paid in post-Covid budget' is surely pleasing for at least one figure, and could be and often is a lot worse as far as single line summaries go.
If the Conservatives are more associated with tax rises than Labour its probably because you have to be in power to raise taxes and Labour havent been.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.
If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?
Maybe because Brown left the country with no money so they couldn't be afforded then?
Plus it was different people then. Sunak wasn't even an MP until 2015 let alone Chancellor.
It was a myth that there was no money. There's no money now, but somehow the BoE is creating it by buying up all the government debt.
For some reason that wasn't possible in 2010.
Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
German cases are still rising vertically. It looks like they'll exceed the peak from last winter soon.
They're months behind the UK in lifting restrictions.
They're going to either have to maintain restrictions at least until spring or summer next year, or face their exit wave in the winter. Neither is an attractive option.
Not lifting restrictions in the summer was a terrible mistake by a lot of countries. I really worry for their winter - I hope I'm wrong!
It will have taken at least six months for Delta to pass through the UK.
It seems unlikely that other countries will not have similar timescales.
Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.
You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!
As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.
This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.
I think it's obvious why.
It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.
Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.
Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!
Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.
I don't think reporting or polling on budgets is ever particularly useful, since most of what is said on both sides is just partisan cliches, most of the 'initial takes' are prepackaged praise or criticisms, or generic fluff, and as with most political events the public don't really notice pretty significant things even when told about them, and the plans might fall due to some inconsequential detail that gets focused on for reasons no one really knows.
That said, the BBC main page headline of 'Sunak unveils help for low paid in post-Covid budget' is surely pleasing for at least one figure, and could be and often is a lot worse as far as single line summaries go.
Let's be frank - I think the Budget was expertly trailed (as I said at the weekend) and smoothly delivered and will produce a Tory bounce in the next polls. But I doubt if it will produce a lasting effect - Sunak has sprayed money around to all sectors but not enough for a major long-term shift in attitudes. It does, though, cement him as the potential successor if Johnson stumbles.
Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.
You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!
As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.
This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.
I think it's obvious why.
It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.
Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.
Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!
Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.
The story is less credible than the notion that Leon is a noted flint dildo knapper who travels around the world writing travel stories for the Flint Knapper Gazette.
I don't think reporting or polling on budgets is ever particularly useful, since most of what is said on both sides is just partisan cliches, most of the 'initial takes' are prepackaged praise or criticisms, or generic fluff, and as with most political events the public don't really notice pretty significant things even when told about them, and the plans might fall due to some inconsequential detail that gets focused on for reasons no one really knows.
That said, the BBC main page headline of 'Sunak unveils help for low paid in post-Covid budget' is surely pleasing for at least one figure, and could be and often is a lot worse as far as single line summaries go.
Let's be frank - I think the Budget was expertly trailed (as I said at the weekend) and smoothly delivered and will produce a Tory bounce in the next polls. But I doubt if it will produce a lasting effect - Sunak has sprayed money around to all sectors but not enough for a major long-term shift in attitudes. It does, though, cement him as the potential successor if Johnson stumbles.
The big ticket item that anyone working will notice is the NI increase. The rest is all trimming as far as personal finance is concerned (excepting possibly the UC taper for those affected)
I don't understand this John Lewis advert thing. You are covered by accidental damage if you have elected for this on your policy. Otherwise you are not.
The ad was pulled because the FCA said that it was misleading. Deliberate damage is not included in their insurance and accidental only as an extra. They now have to go out to the customers they sold the insurance to to explain this and make sure they're happy.
Quite why someone in the financial services arm of John Lewis did not spot this before the ad given that lots of people spotted it within minutes of it being shown is another question.
Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.
The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.
Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.
The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.
You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).
Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.
Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.
You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!
As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.
This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.
I think it's obvious why.
It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.
Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.
Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!
Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.
The story is less credible than the notion that Leon is a noted flint dildo knapper who travels around the world writing travel stories for the Flint Knapper Gazette.
Well of course that's absurd - obviously he's freelance and writes stories for many reputable flint knapping and antique sex toy publications. Duh.
Wow even Kevin Maguire backing Sunak's reform to the UC Taper and calling for more to be done going forwards on that. First time I've ever agreed with Kevin Maguire possibly.
Fixing this taper issue would end the poverty trap and mean people can work their way out of poverty rather than relying on benefits. That's good for the poor, and its good for anyone who believes people should be working.
Well done Sunak. Delighted this has gone through. Hope its a first step not a last step on this going forwards.
Wow even Kevin Maguire backing Sunak's reform to the UC Taper and calling for more to be done going forwards on that. First time I've ever agreed with Kevin Maguire possibly.
Fixing this taper issue would end the poverty trap and mean people can work their way out of poverty rather than relying on benefits. That's good for the poor, and its good for anyone who believes people should be working.
Well done Sunak. Delighted this has gone through. Hope its a first step not a last step on this going forwards.
He's been told by Boris: "Do what it takes to get Philip Thompson back in the tent...."
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......
It does have similarities to the atmospheric river that hit in 2015. But then Cumbria, with its height and westerly location is prone to a lot of rain.
Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.
The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.
You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).
Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.
Not that remarkably, as interest rates have collapsed to near zero across the developed world.
The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.
The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.
The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.
I don’t understand it.
The productivity gains are offset by the proliferation of sites like PB. Workers choose to be equally productive and spend more time on PB, rather than more productive with same time on PB
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.
The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.
I don’t understand it.
Unfortunately the extra productivity went into the creation of social media content.
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
That's a very disingenuous image for many, many reasons.
Why 1997-2008? The Tories took over in 2010, why 2008 figures? Because 2008 was before the bubble burst. Its a fake peak.
There wasn't a 'trend' from 1997-2008. There was growth 1997-2002, then it slowed down to 2004, then it increasingly slowed to a flatline. 2006-2010 there was no growth.
Most importantly it doesn't take into account the national deficit at all. The government is one of the largest employers of all (directly and indirectly) and as furlough has shown its easy to pay wages if you're not bothered about raising money to pay for it - if you are its a different matter.
To be a more meaningful comparison you should adjust the income by that person's share of the government deficit (or surplus).
Remember that there was a budget surplus in 2001 that was turned into a 10% budget deficit by 2010. So really wages were falling from ~2004 onwards, it was just masked by blowing up the deficit.
Remember that there was a 10% budget deficit in 2010 that was eliminated by 2019 pre-pandemic.
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.
The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.
I don’t understand it.
I'm not sure that things like mobiles and apps do in fact make people more productive.
Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.
The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.
You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).
Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.
Not that remarkably, as interest rates have collapsed to near zero across the developed world.
The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)
Yes, it's nothing whatsoever to do with Osborne or his stewardship. Everything to do with the low inflation environment caused by a number of structural factors.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.
If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?
SureStart really makes me angry. It really was working turning around the worst problems in deprived families.
Ditched by Osborne. Purely for partisan reasons.
Shameful.
What evidence is there for this.. and what was the cost per family?
Tonybee.
In our book, ‘The Verdict: Did Labour Change Britain?’ we give the highest marks to Labour’s nursery and Sure Start programme as one of that government’s most permanently transformative successes.
Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.
The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.
You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).
Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.
Not that remarkably, as interest rates have collapsed to near zero across the developed world.
The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)
That's a fair point and its a risk if interest rates go up again, though its worth remembering the UK has a very long-dated profile of bonds over decades not just ten years.
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.
The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.
I don’t understand it.
The productivity gains are offset by the proliferation of sites like PB. Workers choose to be equally productive and spend more time on PB, rather than more productive with same time on PB
Or you wander past a London construction site, where a round dozen polish blokes are trying to manhandle a picture window sized piece of glass up some scaffolding. Cranes? What are they?
Does anyone know why Scotland does so few covid tests ?
And which demographics are not being tested in Scotland but are in England ?
Different people at the top of the medical establishment there.
In England, there were a bunch who were adamant that the number of tests couldn't be increased much beyond 50K per day, and that in any case mass testing is bad.... they were bulldozed out of the way.
Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.
Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)
Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.
Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)
You think people are going to object to the price of their Prosecco etc coming down? 🤔
I don't drink the stuff much myself, but I pay for it when I take the Mrs out, so will benefit from this. I'm not going to object to less taxes on her drinks - I can't see many others are.
The Mirror etc will be desperate to get something to 'stick' but cutting the price of a drink that's very popular now across the country across all ages isn't going to be it. The idea that 'bubbles' are for the wealthy hasn't been true for decades now.
Aaron Bastani @AaronBastani · 15m Numerous budgets under Osborne and Hammond saw rapid u-turns and a loss of policy credibility. Pasty tax, national insurance contributions being most memorable.
Forensic Labour led by the ‘grown ups’ now seemingly incapable of that. Not landing a tickle, let alone a punch.
===
Erm, would that be Ed Balls who led the attack that led to u-turns?
That Ed Balls?
The arch Brownite? The non Marxist? One of many that the Corbyn Cult wanted out of the way in order to better enable their march to overthrown the capitalist junta?
Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.
The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.
You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).
Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.
Not that remarkably, as interest rates have collapsed to near zero across the developed world.
The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)
That's a fair point and its a risk if interest rates go up again, though its worth remembering the UK has a very long-dated profile of bonds over decades not just ten years.
It does, and the UK has managed its debt maturity profile pretty well.
Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.
Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)
You think people are going to object to the price of their Prosecco etc coming down? 🤔
I don't drink the stuff much myself, but I pay for it when I take the Mrs out, so will benefit from this. I'm not going to object to less taxes on her drinks - I can't see many others are.
The Mirror etc will be desperate to get something to 'stick' but cutting the price of a drink that's very popular now across the country across all ages isn't going to be it. The idea that 'bubbles' are for the wealthy hasn't been true for decades now.
Sunak banged on about Prosecco rather than Champers.
The latter of course far more associated with the landed than the former, which is guzzled by the bucket by every bridezilla.
Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.
Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)
You think people are going to object to the price of their Prosecco etc coming down? 🤔
I don't drink the stuff much myself, but I pay for it when I take the Mrs out, so will benefit from this. I'm not going to object to less taxes on her drinks - I can't see many others are.
The Mirror etc will be desperate to get something to 'stick' but cutting the price of a drink that's very popular now across the country across all ages isn't going to be it. The idea that 'bubbles' are for the wealthy hasn't been true for decades now.
Rationally, that's probably true, but politics isn't always about the rational. After all, the pasty tax made logical sense.
Rishi can almost certainly get away with this, but it's a foolish priority vfir a tax cut when money is tight and taxes are going up elsewhere.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
I recall a story from Rome - I think it was one the Gracchi brothers was in the market place, seeing the corn dole being given out.
He was rather surprised to see a very wealth opponent of the corn dole there. Who said something on the lines of "I don't agree with you sharing out my wealth. But if you are, I am going to be get a piece of it back."
Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.
Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)
You think people are going to object to the price of their Prosecco etc coming down? 🤔
I don't drink the stuff much myself, but I pay for it when I take the Mrs out, so will benefit from this. I'm not going to object to less taxes on her drinks - I can't see many others are.
The Mirror etc will be desperate to get something to 'stick' but cutting the price of a drink that's very popular now across the country across all ages isn't going to be it. The idea that 'bubbles' are for the wealthy hasn't been true for decades now.
Rationally, that's probably true, but politics isn't always about the rational. After all, the pasty tax made logical sense.
Rishi can almost certainly get away with this, but it's a foolish priority vfir a tax cut when money is tight and taxes are going up elsewhere.
Its entirely rational. Its a rational fix to the tax system that is justified - why should English sparkling white wine be taxed more than an imported bottle of French red wine?
Plus it generates feelgood headlines at not much economic cost.
What would you prioritise instead where you would get a better bang for your buck in a reform that doesn't cost any more than this does?
Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.
You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!
As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.
This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.
I think it's obvious why.
It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.
Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.
Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!
Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.
The story is less credible than the notion that Leon is a noted flint dildo knapper who travels around the world writing travel stories for the Flint Knapper Gazette.
Well of course that's absurd - obviously he's freelance and writes stories for many reputable flint knapping and antique sex toy publications. Duh.
He has international coverage. His articles can be found in magazines on the top shelves of newsagents throughout Azerbaijan, stained with stale caviar.
Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.
You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!
As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.
This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.
I think it's obvious why.
It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.
Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.
Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!
Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.
The story is less credible than the notion that Leon is a noted flint dildo knapper who travels around the world writing travel stories for the Flint Knapper Gazette.
Well of course that's absurd - obviously he's freelance and writes stories for many reputable flint knapping and antique sex toy publications. Duh.
He has international coverage. His articles can be found in magazines on the top shelves of newsagents throughout Azerbaijan, stained with stale caviar.
I was in a black cab driven by an Azerbaijani just the other day.....
Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.
Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.
That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......
Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.
Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.
That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......
“Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.”
Sky News @SkyNews "The acid test for this budget isn't how it lands in the next few days but how this lands in the coming months against a backdrop of inflation, predicted to hit 4% next year, and continued cost of living pressures."
Sky News @SkyNews "The acid test for this budget isn't how it lands in the next few days but how this lands in the coming months against a backdrop of inflation, predicted to hit 4% next year, and continued cost of living pressures."
Is that a real tweet? Literally no one will be talking about this budget in a year's time.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.
Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.
That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.
Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.
That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......
Might you not tip your hat into the ring?
I am already doing something similar for another well-known organisation.
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high....
We felt the same way when Hurricane Ida came through a couple of months back and dropped a month or so of rainfall in a day. We watched our street turn into a minor tributary of the Hudson but it went past us which was good.
Of course to put it into perspective dozens of people drowned in the NJ/NY/CT tri-state area including tragically people in basement apartments in NYC who couldn’t get out in time. And what we got was nothing as bad as the initial impact on Louisiana.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.
If you want children you should pay for them yourself!
Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.
Child Benefit has existed in one form or another since 1909.
But in the old days eg 1980 people took responsibility for bringing up and paying for their children. Not today (in too many cases).
Yes yes, people are terrible nowadays and the world is going to hell in a handcart. Just like it has been for the last 3000 years.
You must have a rosy view of Ancient Sumer if that only started 3000 years ago.
Now I have a vision of the 4 Ancient Sumerians telling stories about their deprived childhoods over wine....
Well, Sumerian civilization is generally regarded to have come to an end by 1700BC, although the language persisted as a literary and liturgical language for a couple of millennia more, much like Latin today.
But in c.979BC in ancient Mesopotamia, you might well be bemoaning the “good old days”, especially if you lived somewhere that the Assyrians (the Nazis of the ancient Near East if you ask me) had recently done over.
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......
Will your daughters restaurant be okay ?
Yes, it's nearby.
Kendal may be at risk. And the police are advising avoiding the Ambleside area. Some local roads and fields get a bit waterlogged.
Fingers crossed the rain clouds pass without too much damage.
A friend is walking in Cumbria and nearly got marooned today - planning to take a bus back, waited forever and eventually made her way to a pub who said all the buses had been cancelled. Eventually was able to get a taxi which aquaplaned her to her next stop.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.
If you want children you should pay for them yourself!
Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.
Child benefit was introduced in 1977 actually and rightly so.
Children cost and if no one had them society would die out and the small working population would face a huge tax bill for the health and care costs of the top heavy elderly
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......
Will your daughters restaurant be okay ?
Yes, it's nearby.
Kendal may be at risk. And the police are advising avoiding the Ambleside area. Some local roads and fields get a bit waterlogged.
Fingers crossed the rain clouds pass without too much damage.
A friend is walking in Cumbria and nearly got marooned today - planning to take a bus back, waited forever and eventually made her way to a pub who said all the buses had been cancelled. Eventually was able to get a taxi which aquaplaned her to her next stop.
Or Wednesday. As they call it in Cumbria. Still. Ditch the Green crap.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?
It inevitably increases the tax burden on the working age population to cover the health and care costs of the elderly and lowers economic growth.
A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
Not everyone benefited from the budget today according to Peston earlier.
While those on the living wage saw a boost and those in work on UC did too and pub and club and cafe owners also were winners, single people out of work will still see a £19 a week pay fall. They therefore joined port and sherry drinkers as the main losers
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?
It inevitably increases the tax burden on the working age population to cover the health and care costs of the elderly and lowers economic growth.
A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation
One only has to look at Italy and Japan to see what happens when you combine terrible birthrates and rising life expectancy.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.
If you want children you should pay for them yourself!
Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.
How do you feel about the French system where every member of your family comes with their own tax allowances and they stack? So, a single man might start paying higher rate tax at €60,000/year, but if he's married and has two kids, then it's €240,000/year.
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.
The whole notion of career progression is a middle class one. Most working class jobs have little scope for progression. Maybe not even middle class jobs beyond set annual increments for experience. We can't all be promoted every three years.
Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.
Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)
It certainly looks dodgy, if (as reported) the threshold really is set at 11%. The budget clearly painted a picture of winners and losers within wine categories - with roses specifically named as benefitting. Yet almost all roses nowadays, and indeed almost all wines, are above the 11% mark
Comments
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.
If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?
To be honest he overshadowed Boris completely and for me the change cannot come soon enough
Plus it was different people then. Sunak wasn't even an MP until 2015 let alone Chancellor.
How do Labour wrestle the agenda back?
Promise to cut income tax to 15p by taxing wealth and non income earnings.
Hammer those who have, to reward those that work.
After all he thought the equivalent of a 75% tax on those earning just above the bare minimum (I.e those on universal credit) was fine when even IDS said it was too high.
For some reason that wasn't possible in 2010.
That said, the BBC main page headline of 'Sunak unveils help for low paid in post-Covid budget' is surely pleasing for at least one figure, and could be and often is a lot worse as far as single line summaries go.
Ditched by Osborne. Purely for partisan reasons.
Shameful.
Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?
The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.
The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.
Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.
It seems unlikely that other countries will not have similar timescales.
And which demographics are not being tested in Scotland but are in England ?
Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.
"Sorry, poor people, we have to put the taxes UP on you as well...."
Quite why someone in the financial services arm of John Lewis did not spot this before the ad given that lots of people spotted it within minutes of it being shown is another question.
The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.
Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Fixing this taper issue would end the poverty trap and mean people can work their way out of poverty rather than relying on benefits. That's good for the poor, and its good for anyone who believes people should be working.
Well done Sunak. Delighted this has gone through. Hope its a first step not a last step on this going forwards.
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......
The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)
Corbyn, Brexit and Johnson have all been partly about flailing attempts to fix the problem that people want to feel better off.
God knows what will happen when (and I fear that I do mean when) Brexit and BoJo don't help.
Don't have nightmares, everyone.
I don’t understand it.
Kendal may be at risk. And the police are advising avoiding the Ambleside area. Some local roads and fields get a bit waterlogged.
Fingers crossed the rain clouds pass without too much damage.
My wife looks Prosecco, why should that be subject to £1 more in tax than a same-strength bottle of white wine?
In our book, ‘The Verdict: Did Labour Change Britain?’ we give the highest marks to Labour’s nursery and Sure Start programme as one of that government’s most permanently transformative successes.
https://labourlist.org/2013/06/sure-start-one-of-labours-most-permanently-transformative-successes/
In England, there were a bunch who were adamant that the number of tests couldn't be increased much beyond 50K per day, and that in any case mass testing is bad.... they were bulldozed out of the way.
I don't drink the stuff much myself, but I pay for it when I take the Mrs out, so will benefit from this. I'm not going to object to less taxes on her drinks - I can't see many others are.
The Mirror etc will be desperate to get something to 'stick' but cutting the price of a drink that's very popular now across the country across all ages isn't going to be it. The idea that 'bubbles' are for the wealthy hasn't been true for decades now.
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
15m
Numerous budgets under Osborne and Hammond saw rapid u-turns and a loss of policy credibility. Pasty tax, national insurance contributions being most memorable.
Forensic Labour led by the ‘grown ups’ now seemingly incapable of that. Not landing a tickle, let alone a punch.
===
Erm, would that be Ed Balls who led the attack that led to u-turns?
That Ed Balls?
The arch Brownite? The non Marxist? One of many that the Corbyn Cult wanted out of the way in order to better enable their march to overthrown the capitalist junta?
If you want children you should pay for them yourself!
Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
The latter of course far more associated with the landed than the former, which is guzzled by the bucket by every bridezilla.
Rishi can almost certainly get away with this, but it's a foolish priority vfir a tax cut when money is tight and taxes are going up elsewhere.
He was rather surprised to see a very wealth opponent of the corn dole there. Who said something on the lines of "I don't agree with you sharing out my wealth. But if you are, I am going to be get a piece of it back."
Plus it generates feelgood headlines at not much economic cost.
What would you prioritise instead where you would get a better bang for your buck in a reform that doesn't cost any more than this does?
{Opens another bottle of Chateau de Chassilier}
When I was a lad, we.......
Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.
That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......
Sky News
@SkyNews
"The acid test for this budget isn't how it lands in the next few days but how this lands in the coming months against a backdrop of inflation, predicted to hit 4% next year, and continued cost of living pressures."
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
I wish the Post Office luck. They'll need it.
BTW lovely header. Enjoyed it, thank you.
Of course to put it into perspective dozens of people drowned in the NJ/NY/CT tri-state area including tragically people in basement apartments in NYC who couldn’t get out in time. And what we got was nothing as bad as the initial impact on Louisiana.
But in c.979BC in ancient Mesopotamia, you might well be bemoaning the “good old days”, especially if you lived somewhere that the Assyrians (the Nazis of the ancient Near East if you ask me) had recently done over.
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Children cost and if no one had them society would die out and the small working population would face a huge tax bill for the health and care costs of the top heavy elderly
As they call it in Cumbria.
Still. Ditch the Green crap.
A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation
While those on the living wage saw a boost and those in work on UC did too and pub and club and cafe owners also were winners, single people out of work will still see a £19 a week pay fall. They therefore joined port and sherry drinkers as the main losers