Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why Boris Johnson and the Tories may soon experience a surge in the polls – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653

    Mr. Pointer, if money matters so little then there wouldn't be so many Frenchmen living in London.

    Mr. Sandpit, sounds like Horner needs a bollocking. The yellow flag situation was a bit weird/on and off but that isn't the fault of a marshal.

    Force British citizens to pay the wealth tax no matter where they live; let them offset any local wealth taxes they pay in their offshore country of residence.

    Also, tax the UK assets of non-Brits at the same rate. If the Russian oligarchs and Middle-East oil sheikhs flee London or the UK so be it.

    Regarding the French in London... It may partly be for the avoidance of French taxes but for many it will be for other reasons, including: London being a great place to live.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    malcolmg said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    The truth is for most of us the virus is now in the past as regards the health impacts but in the present as regards the economic impacts. If we are, as the Express claims, going to spend £85 billion on Christmas, the last thing we'll need to hear is story about popular toys or foodstuffs being unavailable or in short supply.

    The next four weeks will be a big test of the "supply chain" and where shortages do occur, you can be assured they will be reported and probably exaggerated (much to the chagrin of the pro-Government posters).

    The evidence therefore is case numbers and vaccination numbers are increasingly less relevant. We are "living with" the virus and will no doubt dutifully troop along for our fourth vaccinations in due time.

    Tell that to the 200 or so that are dying every day.
    Those deaths are unavoidable. The disease (in its severe form) is now one of the unvaccinated, who can't be helped because they refuse to be helped, and the unlucky.

    We could have another go at suppressing the illness with yet another lockdown, but the economic and social damage caused would be enormous and the deaths would not be prevented, merely delayed for a period approximately equal to that of the lockdown.

    The vaccine has changed the rules about how Covid should be managed: the decision of the UK Government to junk restrictions, let it spread freely during the Summer, and especially to allow it to go through the schools like crap through a goose in early Autumn, appears to have been correct. Continuing to faff about with masks and social distancing has visited another catastrophic winter of lockdowns upon many of our near neighbours, and will have done nothing to save lives in the medium term.
  • malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Has it been completely ruled out that the problems in Europe are not being caused by some kind of new variant?


  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926
    darkage said:

    Has it been completely ruled out that the problems in Europe are not being caused by some kind of new variant?


    They would have picked it up in Denmark by now given the amount of sequencing they do.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,187
    Absolute state of the replies to my MP saying 40-49 boosters opening from Monday on his Facebook.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
  • RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    Here's an update of the plot I made a couple of weeks ago comparing the UK and France. Ahead is a correct description.

    https://i.imgur.com/S43Gztv.png
    No, looking at your plot, marginally ahead would be a correct description. It bears out the point implied in Foxy's question that when you need to adjust for the timing of the 2nd dose. With that adjustment, what previously appeared to be a pretty stark difference becomes a pretty marginal one.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,127
    Done Poch at 10/1 for next Man U manager. I can see it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    While of course changing the rules is possible, your proposal is clearly covered by the first bullet, a tax on cash in an ISA.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,270
    darkage said:

    Has it been completely ruled out that the problems in Europe are not being caused by some kind of new variant?


    There is a new variant B.1.640 that is driving cases in some regions including France, Italy, Canada etc.

    It has mutations not seen before to its Spike Proteins.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    Here's an update of the plot I made a couple of weeks ago comparing the UK and France. Ahead is a correct description.

    https://i.imgur.com/S43Gztv.png
    No, looking at your plot, marginally ahead would be a correct description. It bears out the point implied in Foxy's question that when you need to adjust for the timing of the 2nd dose. With that adjustment, what previously appeared to be a pretty stark difference becomes a pretty marginal one.
    It's a further two weeks ahead, on top of how far ahead we were the first time around.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,347
    O/T, but I see Biden is down to 41% on the RCP average, and the Republicans 4% ahead on the generic poll.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    While of course changing the rules is possible, your proposal is clearly covered by the first bullet, a tax on cash in an ISA.
    The first bullet point says you don't pay tax on the the INTEREST on cash, not the cash itself.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    edited November 2021
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    While of course changing the rules is possible, your proposal is clearly covered by the first bullet, a tax on cash in an ISA.
    Wrong. I refer you to my honourable friend @Gallowgate .
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    Joe Saward
    @joesaward
    Horner gets off with warning for suggesting to Sky TV that there had been a "rogue marshal" waving a yellow flag. He offered to participate in the 2022 FIA International Stewards Programme in
    early February - and the offer was accepted. He'll probably learn a lot... as Max did.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    While of course changing the rules is possible, your proposal is clearly covered by the first bullet, a tax on cash in an ISA.
    The first bullet point says you don't pay tax on the the INTEREST on cash, not the cash itself.
    Oh I am blind, hah! Thanks. I don't think the current rules are a bar to @Benpointer's proposals as rules are there to be changed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    Sean_F said:

    O/T, but I see Biden is down to 41% on the RCP average, and the Republicans 4% ahead on the generic poll.

    2022 and 2024 are looking like easy wins for the Republicans - providing they can keep Donald J Trump quiet.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    eek said:

    Joe Saward
    @joesaward
    Horner gets off with warning for suggesting to Sky TV that there had been a "rogue marshal" waving a yellow flag. He offered to participate in the 2022 FIA International Stewards Programme in
    early February - and the offer was accepted. He'll probably learn a lot... as Max did.

    Gotta love Joe, the old-school hack who’s been to every race for the past 35 years.

    Shame there wasn’t a proper penalty issued.
  • malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    Or on the first £1000 of savings interest from any otherwise taxable source (increased still further if you are a lower earner). And nowadays you need a LOT of capital to be getting that much interest in a year.

    The overwhelming majority of savings and investment income in the UK is now untaxed, as investors have built up their ISA portfolios.

    Sooner or later a chancellor is going to have to break the spell?
  • eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    LOL, Christian Horner summoned to see the stewards, for allegedly bringing the sport into disrepute.

    https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2021 Qatar Grand Prix - Summons - Christian Horner.pdf

    I covered the most suitable punishment, earlier - Horner should be made to work as a Marshall for the next 3 races.
    What does Christian Horner's disrepute charge relate to specifically?
    Bringing Lewis Hamilton's 8th World Title into disrepute.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I don't think there is much you can now do about them - everyone online who I know is anti-vax are shall we say hard to have a rational conversation with (because they think they won't be seriously ill with it).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,311
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    I got my booster on Friday, something like 22 weeks after my second jab, so we are trimming things a little to get them done. 24 hours of a sore arm and a bit of tiredness the only consequence I am pleased to report.
    Not everywhere David, I was jagged end April and only booked in for 5 December so well beyond the 6 months
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,805

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    Get your Covid jab - part 237 in an ongoing series...

    An NHS consultant writes:

    In hospital, Covid-19 has largely become a disease of the unvaccinated. The man in his 20s who had always watched what he ate, worked out in the gym, was too healthy to ever catch Covid badly. The 48-year-old who never got round to making the appointment.

    The person in their 50s whose friend had side-effects. The woman who wanted to wait for more evidence. The young pregnant lady worried about the effect on her baby.

    The 60-year-old, brought to hospital with oxygen saturations of 70% by the ambulance that he initially called for his partner, who had died by the time it arrived; both believed that the drug companies bribed the government to get the vaccine approved.

    All severely ill with Covid. All unvaccinated and previously healthy. All completely avoidable.

    Of course, there are people who have their vaccinations but still get sick. These people may be elderly or frail, or have underlying health problems. Those with illnesses affecting the immune system, particularly patients who have had chemotherapy for blood cancers, are especially vulnerable. Some unlucky healthy people will also end up on our general wards with Covid after being vaccinated, usually needing a modest amount of oxygen for a few days.

    But the story is different on our intensive care unit. Here, the patient population consists of a few vulnerable people with severe underlying health problems and a majority of fit, healthy, younger people unvaccinated by choice.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    The rest of the piece is worth reading, but basically the message is exactly as one would expect, and as we have all known for months: Covid-19 in the UK is now, in its severe form, a disease that afflicts the unvaccinated, along with small numbers of very ill and very unlucky people. Most Covid-19 deaths happening in this country today are essentially self-inflicted - misadventure rather than suicide, but self-inflicted nonetheless.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,549
    edited November 2021
    They're really making a mess of things in Netherlands, Germany, Austria at the moment. I can remember when they were doing much better than the UK about 12 months ago.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    Or on the first £1000 of savings interest from any otherwise taxable source (increased still further if you are a lower earner). And nowadays you need a LOT of capital to be getting that much interest in a year.

    The overwhelming majority of savings and investment income in the UK is now untaxed, as investors have built up their ISA portfolios.

    Sooner or later a chancellor is going to have to break the spell?
    In practice many use ISAs as a more flexible form of pension. The tax is paid on the way in rather than out, but a stocks and shares ISA pot can easily have reached 5 figure by now, and I suspect 6 figures is not unknown.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,030
    edited November 2021
    There are shades of Man United about Spurs this pm, and that is with a new manager

    And Leeds have just scored
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    Or on the first £1000 of savings interest from any otherwise taxable source (increased still further if you are a lower earner). And nowadays you need a LOT of capital to be getting that much interest in a year.

    The overwhelming majority of savings and investment income in the UK is now untaxed, as investors have built up their ISA portfolios.

    Sooner or later a chancellor is going to have to break the spell?
    My advice when looking at any tax is to find a country that currently has such a tax and see what familar tax they don't have.

    Switzerland is famous for having a wealth tax (since the 1700s) but because of the wealth tax it doesn't have a capital gains tax (£10bn in the UK).

    That may not be a problem but your wealth tax would need to cover the shortfall.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,187
    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653

    There are shades of Man United about Spurs this pm, and that is with a new manager

    Ironic that Ole was sacked with United still in with a good shout at CL next season (based on current points if not current form)

    I agree he had to go though.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited November 2021
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    Vaccine passports for pubs doesn’t just make life difficult for the unvaccinated. It makes life very difficult for the pubs expected to enforce them as well.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
  • There are shades of Man United about Spurs this pm, and that is with a new manager

    Ironic that Ole was sacked with United still in with a good shout at CL next season (based on current points if not current form)

    I agree he had to go though.
    He had lost the dressing room and should have gone after the Liverpool 0 - 5 win
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    edited November 2021
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    Both are valid approaches. Personally I would go for every asset bar uncrystallised pension pots (because we should encourage people to save for their own retirement and the pots will be taxed as assets or income once crystallised).

    ISAs? Yep, include them. The commitment was that they would not be taxed for income or capital gains - this is a new tax, tough.

    From gov.uk:
    "You do not pay tax on:
    - interest on cash in an ISA
    - income or capital gains from investments in an ISA"
    Or on the first £1000 of savings interest from any otherwise taxable source (increased still further if you are a lower earner). And nowadays you need a LOT of capital to be getting that much interest in a year.

    The overwhelming majority of savings and investment income in the UK is now untaxed, as investors have built up their ISA portfolios.

    Sooner or later a chancellor is going to have to break the spell?
    In practice many use ISAs as a more flexible form of pension. The tax is paid on the way in rather than out, but a stocks and shares ISA pot can easily have reached 5 figure by now, and I suspect 6 figures is not unknown.
    It can reach 5 figures in one year! (£20,000 annual contribution allowance).

    I suspect many are 6 figures (Mrs P's and mine are, to declare an interest). You'd have had to be lucky/good with investments to be at over £1m though.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    I got my booster on Friday, something like 22 weeks after my second jab, so we are trimming things a little to get them done. 24 hours of a sore arm and a bit of tiredness the only consequence I am pleased to report.
    Not everywhere David, I was jagged end April and only booked in for 5 December so well beyond the 6 months
    There has to be other reasons for that - is your doctor doing this vaccination.

    I'm booked in for December 15th - which is the first possible day after my June 16th second vaccination.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    pigeon said:

    Get your Covid jab - part 237 in an ongoing series...

    An NHS consultant writes:

    In hospital, Covid-19 has largely become a disease of the unvaccinated. The man in his 20s who had always watched what he ate, worked out in the gym, was too healthy to ever catch Covid badly. The 48-year-old who never got round to making the appointment.

    The person in their 50s whose friend had side-effects. The woman who wanted to wait for more evidence. The young pregnant lady worried about the effect on her baby.

    The 60-year-old, brought to hospital with oxygen saturations of 70% by the ambulance that he initially called for his partner, who had died by the time it arrived; both believed that the drug companies bribed the government to get the vaccine approved.

    All severely ill with Covid. All unvaccinated and previously healthy. All completely avoidable.

    Of course, there are people who have their vaccinations but still get sick. These people may be elderly or frail, or have underlying health problems. Those with illnesses affecting the immune system, particularly patients who have had chemotherapy for blood cancers, are especially vulnerable. Some unlucky healthy people will also end up on our general wards with Covid after being vaccinated, usually needing a modest amount of oxygen for a few days.

    But the story is different on our intensive care unit. Here, the patient population consists of a few vulnerable people with severe underlying health problems and a majority of fit, healthy, younger people unvaccinated by choice.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    The rest of the piece is worth reading, but basically the message is exactly as one would expect, and as we have all known for months: Covid-19 in the UK is now, in its severe form, a disease that afflicts the unvaccinated, along with small numbers of very ill and very unlucky people. Most Covid-19 deaths happening in this country today are essentially self-inflicted - misadventure rather than suicide, but self-inflicted nonetheless.

    Yes, that is pretty much our experience in Leicester. It is all still rather a strain on the system. We have 100 medical beds occupied in this way and a third of our ICU occupied. It makes any planned surgery other than daycare very difficult because there are no beds, and no ICU for post op heavy cases such as thoracic or major cancer surgery.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653

    There are shades of Man United about Spurs this pm, and that is with a new manager

    Ironic that Ole was sacked with United still in with a good shout at CL next season (based on current points if not current form)

    I agree he had to go though.
    He had lost the dressing room and should have gone after the Liverpool 0 - 5 win
    Yes, agreed. The 3-0 against Spurs delayed it though.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    Andy_JS said:

    They're really making a mess of things in Netherlands, Germany, Austria at the moment. I can remember when they were doing much better than the UK about 12 months ago.

    12 months ago the main variant wasn't as infectious as the current ones.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Yes, but the more you make the sensible and obvious tweaks to it, the more you converge on a hyped up IHT. We know how scared governments are of the public's reaction to IHT. A wealth tax sounds great to people because they think only Lewis Hamilton and a couple of dukes will actually pay it; when that turns out not to be the case it'll be electoral poison. 2008 is fresh in both sides' memory.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    Vaccine passports for pubs doesn’t just make life difficult for the unvaccinated. It makes life very difficult for the pubs expected to enforce them as well.
    Not being able to leave the country is going to be the biggest problem for the unvaxxed.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
    In your previous post - which said

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    Here's an update of the plot I made a couple of weeks ago comparing the UK and France. Ahead is a correct description.

    https://i.imgur.com/S43Gztv.png
    No, looking at your plot, marginally ahead would be a correct description. It bears out the point implied in Foxy's question that when you need to adjust for the timing of the 2nd dose. With that adjustment, what previously appeared to be a pretty stark difference becomes a pretty marginal one.
    The original point was someone describing our booster program in very negative terms, which it clearly isn’t. It wasn’t about willy waving against the french.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,805
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    Vaccine passports for pubs doesn’t just make life difficult for the unvaccinated. It makes life very difficult for the pubs expected to enforce them as well.
    Not really. They already have to enforce age rules and inebriation rules. In Scotland they also have to register each group so that they can be traced. It really wouldn't be difficult to combine that link to a register of those vaccinated. I certainly agree that the onus is on the government to make it as easy as possible and we are not there yet.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,549
    edited November 2021
    I don't understand vaccine hesitancy. I've already had 3 jabs and I'd be happy to have another one every day. It seems to be particularly strong in Austria for some reason.
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.
    So is mine by nearly 50%
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,187
    edited November 2021
    One place vaccine passports would be trivial to introduce would be at the cinema. Dune well worth a watch if you fancy some slightly slow burning yet epic space opera.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    Here's an update of the plot I made a couple of weeks ago comparing the UK and France. Ahead is a correct description.

    https://i.imgur.com/S43Gztv.png
    No, looking at your plot, marginally ahead would be a correct description. It bears out the point implied in Foxy's question that when you need to adjust for the timing of the 2nd dose. With that adjustment, what previously appeared to be a pretty stark difference becomes a pretty marginal one.
    The original point was someone describing our booster program in very negative terms, which it clearly isn’t. It wasn’t about willy waving against the french.
    Completely unintentional, I assure you.

    *innocent face*
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,800
    darkage said:

    Has it been completely ruled out that the problems in Europe are not being caused by some kind of new variant?


    We would have picked it up in our sequencing given the number of incoming travellers from Europe.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    Here's an update of the plot I made a couple of weeks ago comparing the UK and France. Ahead is a correct description.

    https://i.imgur.com/S43Gztv.png
    No, looking at your plot, marginally ahead would be a correct description. It bears out the point implied in Foxy's question that when you need to adjust for the timing of the 2nd dose. With that adjustment, what previously appeared to be a pretty stark difference becomes a pretty marginal one.
    It's a further two weeks ahead, on top of how far ahead we were the first time around.

    If you are assessing the success or otherwise of booster rollouts, you base that solely on when they are due. So the second half of your sentence is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not you agree that a two week difference is marginal, the original graph you posted failed to allow for the timing of boosters and was highly misleading.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,800
    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    Vaccine passports for pubs doesn’t just make life difficult for the unvaccinated. It makes life very difficult for the pubs expected to enforce them as well.
    Not really. They already have to enforce age rules and inebriation rules. In Scotland they also have to register each group so that they can be traced. It really wouldn't be difficult to combine that link to a register of those vaccinated. I certainly agree that the onus is on the government to make it as easy as possible and we are not there yet.
    It's an unnecessary NPI. Scotland have got them for reasons of differentiation from England. If England had vaccine passports Nicola would be saying they are unnecessary.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    edited November 2021
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
    In your previous post - which said

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences.

    Blimey how much clearer can I be? I said liquidating the primary residence asset is difficult (but offered a solution - property charges); I didn't say the asset should be excluded. It should and must be included.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926
    edited November 2021

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    Here's an update of the plot I made a couple of weeks ago comparing the UK and France. Ahead is a correct description.

    https://i.imgur.com/S43Gztv.png
    No, looking at your plot, marginally ahead would be a correct description. It bears out the point implied in Foxy's question that when you need to adjust for the timing of the 2nd dose. With that adjustment, what previously appeared to be a pretty stark difference becomes a pretty marginal one.
    It's a further two weeks ahead, on top of how far ahead we were the first time around.

    If you are assessing the success or otherwise of booster rollouts, you base that solely on when they are due. So the second half of your sentence is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not you agree that a two week difference is marginal, the original graph you posted failed to allow for the timing of boosters and was highly misleading.
    The original claim was that the rollout was slow. This demonstrates that is not the case. In fact, it is ahead of schedule if you are basing it on when it is due. Ignoring completely that there is no set due date, and it may be different in countries that used different vaccines or sub-optimal dosing strategies.

    Edit: Sorry, which graph I posted was misleading??
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    One sad milestone this week. The last of our Spanish/Portuguese nurses is leaving. We recruited about 10 in 2015. Most went back, or to France/Germany pre pandemic, but being redeployed to ICU was the final straw for the last one. She goes in a fortnight albeit with British dual nationality, but I don't think she will return.

    A lot of staff have had enough and are talking of going too, even Mrs Foxy and I are increasingly talking about it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Lewis clear betting fav for WDC now. Quite the turnaround. He touched 7 after the grid penalty last week.

    I don't see how. Max only needs to beat him once.

    I'm going to put a bet on Max.
    Currently the quickest car, which the last couple of tracks ought to favour, and a one race old engine which he didn't use here.
    Of course it could all go pear shaped, but I think he's reasonably the favourite right now.
    If Lewis wins in Jeddah, Max just needs to touch him in the first corner in Abu Dhabi to have a good chance of winning the championship.
    And Hamilton just needs to avoid that.
    Having thought it highly improbable a month or so back, my money would now be on Hamilton.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    Vaccine passports for pubs doesn’t just make life difficult for the unvaccinated. It makes life very difficult for the pubs expected to enforce them as well.
    Hopefully we'll be able to keep on doing without vaccine passports in England, but I question how much difference they would make even if we tried using them. AIUI they've had them in Germany all along and a fat lot of good it has done.

    That kind of measure is only going to get anti-vaxxers out of circulation and/or compel them to stop digging their heels in if it is made a condition of going to work. The large bulk of anti-vaxxers aren't pensioners: strip them of their income and they'll soon be forced to give in.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,805
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    Vaccine passports for pubs doesn’t just make life difficult for the unvaccinated. It makes life very difficult for the pubs expected to enforce them as well.
    Not really. They already have to enforce age rules and inebriation rules. In Scotland they also have to register each group so that they can be traced. It really wouldn't be difficult to combine that link to a register of those vaccinated. I certainly agree that the onus is on the government to make it as easy as possible and we are not there yet.
    It's an unnecessary NPI. Scotland have got them for reasons of differentiation from England. If England had vaccine passports Nicola would be saying they are unnecessary.
    Well, of course she would. But her ridiculous differentiation policy is not the point. The question is how do we incentivise those who are resisting vaccines and clogging up our hospitals?
  • MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    Vaccine passports for pubs doesn’t just make life difficult for the unvaccinated. It makes life very difficult for the pubs expected to enforce them as well.
    Not really. They already have to enforce age rules and inebriation rules. In Scotland they also have to register each group so that they can be traced. It really wouldn't be difficult to combine that link to a register of those vaccinated. I certainly agree that the onus is on the government to make it as easy as possible and we are not there yet.
    It's an unnecessary NPI. Scotland have got them for reasons of differentiation from England. If England had vaccine passports Nicola would be saying they are unnecessary.
    And Drakeford here in Wales
  • RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    Here's an update of the plot I made a couple of weeks ago comparing the UK and France. Ahead is a correct description.

    https://i.imgur.com/S43Gztv.png
    No, looking at your plot, marginally ahead would be a correct description. It bears out the point implied in Foxy's question that when you need to adjust for the timing of the 2nd dose. With that adjustment, what previously appeared to be a pretty stark difference becomes a pretty marginal one.
    The original point was someone describing our booster program in very negative terms, which it clearly isn’t. It wasn’t about willy waving against the french.
    Indeed, I was taking issue with the willy waving against the French.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
    In your previous post - which said

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences.

    Blimey how much clearer can I be? I said liquidating the primary residence asset is difficult (but offered a solution - property charges); I didn't say the asset should be excluded. It should and must be included.
    " The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold)."

    Most people become little old men/ladies/prefer not to say, living in more or less big houses which get sold on their death. So what you have reinvented is IHT but with no primary res. partial exemption. I don't say it is wrong in principle, but I do say it is politically impossible.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    LOL, Christian Horner summoned to see the stewards, for allegedly bringing the sport into disrepute.

    https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2021 Qatar Grand Prix - Summons - Christian Horner.pdf

    I covered the most suitable punishment, earlier - Horner should be made to work as a Marshall for the next 3 races.
    What does Christian Horner's disrepute charge relate to specifically?
    Bringing Lewis Hamilton's 8th World Title into disrepute.
    Needlessly criticising volunteer race marshalls who do a pretty good job.
    His ideas of how the system works are bizarrely out of touch for a team principal.
  • Mr. B, Hamilton is the favourite.

    He shouldn't be. Verstappen's misfortune in Azerbaijan, Silverstone, and Hungary cost him a minimum of 61 points.

    The title might yet be his, but the momentum is very firmly with Hamilton.

    Hell, if Brazil hadn't been contaminated with a sprint race (or had Hamilton's disqualification penalty been applied to the real race rather than the pretend version) then Verstappen would still be favourite.
  • Foxy said:

    One sad milestone this week. The last of our Spanish/Portuguese nurses is leaving. We recruited about 10 in 2015. Most went back, or to France/Germany pre pandemic, but being redeployed to ICU was the final straw for the last one. She goes in a fortnight albeit with British dual nationality, but I don't think she will return.

    A lot of staff have had enough and are talking of going too, even Mrs Foxy and I are increasingly talking about it.

    Please don't go Foxy, the NHS is barely surviving as it is.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    LOL, Christian Horner summoned to see the stewards, for allegedly bringing the sport into disrepute.

    https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2021 Qatar Grand Prix - Summons - Christian Horner.pdf

    I covered the most suitable punishment, earlier - Horner should be made to work as a Marshall for the next 3 races.
    What does Christian Horner's disrepute charge relate to specifically?
    Bringing Lewis Hamilton's 8th World Title into disrepute.
    Needlessly criticising volunteer race marshalls who do a pretty good job.
    His ideas of how the system works are bizarrely out of touch for a team principal.
    You want more than "a pretty good job" marshalling 200mph race cars, I'd have thought. I remember thinking last time Badminton happened in real life that some of the old farts in yellow vests marshalling traffic really needed putting out to grass after 2 of them enthusiastically invited me to have a head on with an oncoming vehicle. If the F1 guys are volunteers doing 3 days a year I find it credible that the training regime needs looking at.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Getting vaccinated is a risk based decision for people to take. In almost all cases the risk from the vaccine is much lower than the risk from Covid, but unfortunately there are exceptions.

    Given how much trouble COVID is causing in hospitals as a result of the unvaccinated, the only real option that preserves civil liberties and avoids a biosurveillance state is different hospital care for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. There would be exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. I cannot see any other option working: excluding the unvaccinated from society (either by lockdowns or preventing them from accessing public places) is only going to fuel the conspiracy theories that drive much vaccine hesitancy and seem to have provoked riots in parts of Europe.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    LOL, Christian Horner summoned to see the stewards, for allegedly bringing the sport into disrepute.

    https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2021 Qatar Grand Prix - Summons - Christian Horner.pdf

    I covered the most suitable punishment, earlier - Horner should be made to work as a Marshall for the next 3 races.
    What does Christian Horner's disrepute charge relate to specifically?
    Bringing Lewis Hamilton's 8th World Title into disrepute.
    Needlessly criticising volunteer race marshalls who do a pretty good job.
    His ideas of how the system works are bizarrely out of touch for a team principal.
    Horner knows a lot better than that, which to some extent makes his comments even worse. His father runs a race team and he’s been around it since he was a kid, got up to British F3 level himself as a driver before going into management. He knows damn well that the marshals are all volunteers, and give up a huge amount of their time to enable everyone to go racing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
    In your previous post - which said

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences.

    Blimey how much clearer can I be? I said liquidating the primary residence asset is difficult (but offered a solution - property charges); I didn't say the asset should be excluded. It should and must be included.
    " The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold)."

    Most people become little old men/ladies/prefer not to say, living in more or less big houses which get sold on their death. So what you have reinvented is IHT but with no primary res. partial exemption. I don't say it is wrong in principle, but I do say it is politically impossible.
    It’s clearly right in principle, and you’d just have to be clever in how you went about it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
    In your previous post - which said

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences.

    Blimey how much clearer can I be? I said liquidating the primary residence asset is difficult (but offered a solution - property charges); I didn't say the asset should be excluded. It should and must be included.
    " The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold)."

    Most people become little old men/ladies/prefer not to say, living in more or less big houses which get sold on their death. So what you have reinvented is IHT but with no primary res. partial exemption. I don't say it is wrong in principle, but I do say it is politically impossible.
    It’s clearly right in principle, and you’d just have to be clever in how you went about it.
    And unfussed about your party being in power or not.
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.



    So is mine by nearly 50%
    My annual bill is approx 1%
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,187

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.



    So is mine by nearly 50%
    My annual bill is approx 1%
    Everyone knows a fair system isn't introduced because Londoners would squawk and squeal.
  • Think vaccines don't work?
    Pfizer is applying for EUA for their antiviral, Paxlovid,*only* for unvaccinated people.
    Why?
    Hospitalization is such a rare outcome in vaccinated it was impossible to power the study adequately to show benefit in the vaccinated.
    Think about that.


    https://twitter.com/stewak2/status/1462196269351411722?s=20
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,187

    Think vaccines don't work?
    Pfizer is applying for EUA for their antiviral, Paxlovid,*only* for unvaccinated people.
    Why?
    Hospitalization is such a rare outcome in vaccinated it was impossible to power the study adequately to show benefit in the vaccinated.
    Think about that.


    https://twitter.com/stewak2/status/1462196269351411722?s=20

    Surely the unvaccinated wouldn't want this, being big pharma and all.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,399
    darkage said:

    Getting vaccinated is a risk based decision for people to take. In almost all cases the risk from the vaccine is much lower than the risk from Covid, but unfortunately there are exceptions.

    Given how much trouble COVID is causing in hospitals as a result of the unvaccinated, the only real option that preserves civil liberties and avoids a biosurveillance state is different hospital care for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. There would be exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. I cannot see any other option working: excluding the unvaccinated from society (either by lockdowns or preventing them from accessing public places) is only going to fuel the conspiracy theories that drive much vaccine hesitancy and seem to have provoked riots in parts of Europe.

    You mean don't treat the unvaccinated?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631

    Foxy said:

    One sad milestone this week. The last of our Spanish/Portuguese nurses is leaving. We recruited about 10 in 2015. Most went back, or to France/Germany pre pandemic, but being redeployed to ICU was the final straw for the last one. She goes in a fortnight albeit with British dual nationality, but I don't think she will return.

    A lot of staff have had enough and are talking of going too, even Mrs Foxy and I are increasingly talking about it.

    Please don't go Foxy, the NHS is barely surviving as it is.
    Not planning to yet, but doing anything at the moment is like wading in treacle, hard work to make minimal progress. No beds, staff shortages, morale in the dumps, patients with loads of neglected conditions over the last 18 months. It really is no longer much of a pleasure, and generally I love my job and have great colleagues and juniors.

    One thing too is that while I haven't really been locked down is that my habits have changed. I went to my first meal out last week in over 6 months. It was nice, but used to be nearly a weekly event. I have re-learnt to enjoy simple pleasures such as reading, music, gardening, cooking, walking my dog across the fields, visiting the Isle of Wight family etc. In short, the cost of my leisure activities has reduced quite noticeably, and the simple life appeals more each day.
  • UK Vaccine rollout aside, not entirely convinced the voters in the UK are going to appreciate lots of migrants in small boats crossing the Channel arriving from Covid ridden Europe..... really can’t see a poll bounce happening on the back of that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,127
    edited November 2021

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
    In your previous post - which said

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences.

    Blimey how much clearer can I be? I said liquidating the primary residence asset is difficult (but offered a solution - property charges); I didn't say the asset should be excluded. It should and must be included.
    I think the idea is sound in theory and is also practical (with self-assessment and big penalties for fraudulent understatements) except for maybe the politics. If just the one party goes with it I can imagine an electoral dividend for the one that opposes. The public don't like taxes and this one has the aggravating factor of "already taxed, government coming for another bite, not fair, not fair". This is a fallacious view imo but widely held. It's part of why IHT is hated even by those who wouldn't pay it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.



    So is mine by nearly 50%
    My annual bill is approx 1%
    Everyone knows a fair system isn't introduced because Londoners would squawk and squeal.
    Mine is 0.8%
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    edited November 2021

    Think vaccines don't work?
    Pfizer is applying for EUA for their antiviral, Paxlovid,*only* for unvaccinated people.
    Why?
    Hospitalization is such a rare outcome in vaccinated it was impossible to power the study adequately to show benefit in the vaccinated.
    Think about that.


    https://twitter.com/stewak2/status/1462196269351411722?s=20

    The published study was on people with significant risk factors too, so to generalise to all is probably going to increase the Number needed to treat to prevent one admission quite a lot, even before considering the vaxxed. It may well be quite a game changer in time when more studies are done. One thing is that it works on the protease rather than spike protein so should work on all varieties.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,399
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    One sad milestone this week. The last of our Spanish/Portuguese nurses is leaving. We recruited about 10 in 2015. Most went back, or to France/Germany pre pandemic, but being redeployed to ICU was the final straw for the last one. She goes in a fortnight albeit with British dual nationality, but I don't think she will return.

    A lot of staff have had enough and are talking of going too, even Mrs Foxy and I are increasingly talking about it.

    Please don't go Foxy, the NHS is barely surviving as it is.
    Not planning to yet, but doing anything at the moment is like wading in treacle, hard work to make minimal progress. No beds, staff shortages, morale in the dumps, patients with loads of neglected conditions over the last 18 months. It really is no longer much of a pleasure, and generally I love my job and have great colleagues and juniors.

    One thing too is that while I haven't really been locked down is that my habits have changed. I went to my first meal out last week in over 6 months. It was nice, but used to be nearly a weekly event. I have re-learnt to enjoy simple pleasures such as reading, music, gardening, cooking, walking my dog across the fields, visiting the Isle of Wight family etc. In short, the cost of my leisure activities has reduced quite noticeably, and the simple life appeals more each day.
    Anecdotally am hearing much of this. Taking fewer hours, or changing jobs for less pay and less hassle. My brother just quit yesterday for less pay but better hours. They realised they simply don't need the money that much anymore. If they ever did.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.



    So is mine by nearly 50%
    My annual bill is approx 1%
    Everyone knows a fair system isn't introduced because Londoners would squawk and squeal.
    Mine is 0.8%
    About 0.5% for me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,127

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.



    So is mine by nearly 50%
    My annual bill is approx 1%
    Wow that's enormous. Mine's an order of magnitude less.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,399
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.



    So is mine by nearly 50%
    My annual bill is approx 1%
    Wow that's enormous. Mine's an order of magnitude less.
    Because you live in London. 0.8% for me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,127
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.



    So is mine by nearly 50%
    My annual bill is approx 1%
    Everyone knows a fair system isn't introduced because Londoners would squawk and squeal.
    Shouldn't bother the Tories. We don't vote for them.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    Getting vaccinated is a risk based decision for people to take. In almost all cases the risk from the vaccine is much lower than the risk from Covid, but unfortunately there are exceptions.

    Given how much trouble COVID is causing in hospitals as a result of the unvaccinated, the only real option that preserves civil liberties and avoids a biosurveillance state is different hospital care for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. There would be exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. I cannot see any other option working: excluding the unvaccinated from society (either by lockdowns or preventing them from accessing public places) is only going to fuel the conspiracy theories that drive much vaccine hesitancy and seem to have provoked riots in parts of Europe.

    You mean don't treat the unvaccinated?
    You can treat them but within limits defined by the resources available in the healthcare system at any point in time.
    You cannot stop treating cancer, in order treat COVID amongst the unvaccinated.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    One sad milestone this week. The last of our Spanish/Portuguese nurses is leaving. We recruited about 10 in 2015. Most went back, or to France/Germany pre pandemic, but being redeployed to ICU was the final straw for the last one. She goes in a fortnight albeit with British dual nationality, but I don't think she will return.

    A lot of staff have had enough and are talking of going too, even Mrs Foxy and I are increasingly talking about it.

    Please don't go Foxy, the NHS is barely surviving as it is.
    Not planning to yet, but doing anything at the moment is like wading in treacle, hard work to make minimal progress. No beds, staff shortages, morale in the dumps, patients with loads of neglected conditions over the last 18 months. It really is no longer much of a pleasure, and generally I love my job and have great colleagues and juniors.

    One thing too is that while I haven't really been locked down is that my habits have changed. I went to my first meal out last week in over 6 months. It was nice, but used to be nearly a weekly event. I have re-learnt to enjoy simple pleasures such as reading, music, gardening, cooking, walking my dog across the fields, visiting the Isle of Wight family etc. In short, the cost of my leisure activities has reduced quite noticeably, and the simple life appeals more each day.
    That last attitudinal/lifestyle change is so far under-appreciated as a driver of many of the post-pandemic challenges. People have been forced to see the benefits, both economic and for lifestyle, of a slower pace of life, and I am sure we all have anecdotes of people we know who have changed course these last two years.

    What isn’t clear is whether this is a one-off step change of middle aged people advancing their ‘crises’, or whether it will feed through into lasting social and cultural change.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kinabalu said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    This wouldn't do that though.

    Any wealth tax would obviosuly have to have a sizable personal allowance exempt from the tax - say £0.5m? So most houses excluded since they fall within the personal allowance (and for couples sharing the asset a £1m house would be within the allowance).

    So the vast majority would be unaffected. But your £10m castle is going to pay a lot more than band H, I get that.
    So you are replacing capital gains tax (£10bn in tax revenue) then and including residential properties now (which you were excluding in your last post).
    When did I exclude residential properties??
    In your previous post - which said

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences.

    Blimey how much clearer can I be? I said liquidating the primary residence asset is difficult (but offered a solution - property charges); I didn't say the asset should be excluded. It should and must be included.
    I think the idea is sound in theory and is also practical (with self-assessment and big penalties for fraudulent understatements) except for maybe the politics. If just the one party goes with it I can imagine an electoral dividend for the one that opposes. The public don't like taxes and this one has the aggravating factor of "already taxed, government coming for another bite, not fair, not fair". This is a fallacious view imo but widely held. It's part of why IHT is hated even by those who wouldn't pay it.
    "maybe."

    This is really sweet. The idea "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is also sound in theory and also practical "except for maybe the politics." A wealth tax is IHT's big brother. Indeed you'd have to subsume IHT into it, otherwise you really would have double taxation. It was an IHT pledge which torpedoed Brown's 2008 GE and got Cameron over the line in 2010. Neither party will touch it with a bp.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,311
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Mr. Pointer, if you can live anywhere why would you choose the place that makes you pay more?

    Because, Mr. Morris, money isn't everything. People do not choose to live in Britain because it is cheapest but because: a) it's a great place to live, and b) they have emotional/family ties to the UK - a sense of belonging.

    In any event, I'd place this (small percentage) tax on the wealth of every British citizen, no matter where they reside or whetre their assets are. If an individual chooses to give up their British citizenship, so be it (but don't let them expect to get it back later). Frankly if they care that little for Britain they can feck right off.
    Money isn't everything, but it certainly is something. Otherwise you wouldn't have people like Hamilton. No one is suggesting every high net worth individual would leave with a wealth tax, but a 0.5% might convince 1 in 100 to leave. Up that to 1% and it might be 5 in 100.
    But we aren't really looking at a wealth tax on all asset classes (it's too complex and is a problem given how ISAs and pensions work), we really are only looking at taxing the current value of the residential properties you own in place of council tax and stamp duty.

    For anything else is too blooming complex and probably covered by other taxes (capital gains) anyway.
    I don't that is what @Benpointer has been proposing, rather a tax on the complete wealth of an individual (and apparently all overseas citizens, too).
    It doesn't work - which is why we have taxes such as capital gains because it's better to tax an asset as it's sold rather than forcing people to have to liquidate assets once a year to pay this years levy.
    Pah! "It doesn't work"? It's not been tried.

    Liquidating assets? 0.5% per annum should be easily payable from any return on assets over £1m, with the possible exception of primary residences. The 'little old lady or man in a big house' problem already has a solution which is used for social care costs (it's called property charges payable when the asset is eventually sold).

    Nothing insurmountable in any of the challenges related to a wealth tax provided there is a will to address them.
    Most people's wealth is in their primary residential property - remember the original point in this debate was you can't increase council tax by 40% no matter who you play with the bands.
    My council tax is higher than 0.5% of my property value.
    Mine is close to 1%, daylight robbery.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    darkage said:

    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    Getting vaccinated is a risk based decision for people to take. In almost all cases the risk from the vaccine is much lower than the risk from Covid, but unfortunately there are exceptions.

    Given how much trouble COVID is causing in hospitals as a result of the unvaccinated, the only real option that preserves civil liberties and avoids a biosurveillance state is different hospital care for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. There would be exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. I cannot see any other option working: excluding the unvaccinated from society (either by lockdowns or preventing them from accessing public places) is only going to fuel the conspiracy theories that drive much vaccine hesitancy and seem to have provoked riots in parts of Europe.

    You mean don't treat the unvaccinated?
    You can treat them but within limits defined by the resources available in the healthcare system at any point in time.
    You cannot stop treating cancer, in order treat COVID amongst the unvaccinated.
    This sort of thing is a slippery slope though. Obviously it is a slippery slope some people might be quite happy to go down, but what fundamentally is the difference between this and different treatment for smokers, or overweight people, or drug users, or alcoholics or...

    And it would be interesting to know how many of the people in hospital taking up valuable space right now fall into those categories. Or how many people in those categories are the one's experiencing reduced levels of care because of the Covid contribution.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    darkage said:

    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    Getting vaccinated is a risk based decision for people to take. In almost all cases the risk from the vaccine is much lower than the risk from Covid, but unfortunately there are exceptions.

    Given how much trouble COVID is causing in hospitals as a result of the unvaccinated, the only real option that preserves civil liberties and avoids a biosurveillance state is different hospital care for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. There would be exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. I cannot see any other option working: excluding the unvaccinated from society (either by lockdowns or preventing them from accessing public places) is only going to fuel the conspiracy theories that drive much vaccine hesitancy and seem to have provoked riots in parts of Europe.

    You mean don't treat the unvaccinated?
    You can treat them but within limits defined by the resources available in the healthcare system at any point in time.
    You cannot stop treating cancer, in order treat COVID amongst the unvaccinated.
    It seems astonishing to me, that with all the evidence we have about:
    Safety - some side effects, but usually limited to a day or two.
    Efficacy - ICU is mainly unvaccinated people, many of whom assumed they were too healthy and fit to suffer from Covid.
    That people are still not getting vaccinated.
    I think the government needs a huge advertising campaign showing ICU and detailing the vaccination status. A few dead ‘I’m too healthy a fit to suffer’ types being buried with weeping relatives too.

    I’m fucking done with those who wont get vaccinated. Why the fuck not you dickheads?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,311
    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    the booster rollout is slack and sloppy.

    Really?



    Is that rebased to be 6 months post second dose?, because as most of Europe was a couple of months behind us, a lot more of the boosters are not yet due.
    I got my booster on Friday, something like 22 weeks after my second jab, so we are trimming things a little to get them done. 24 hours of a sore arm and a bit of tiredness the only consequence I am pleased to report.
    Not everywhere David, I was jagged end April and only booked in for 5 December so well beyond the 6 months
    There has to be other reasons for that - is your doctor doing this vaccination.

    I'm booked in for December 15th - which is the first possible day after my June 16th second vaccination.
    In Scotland you only get at centres , Doctor's not involved. I reckon my letter was either missed or went missing , my wife got hers on the 6 months mark.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,399
    darkage said:

    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    Getting vaccinated is a risk based decision for people to take. In almost all cases the risk from the vaccine is much lower than the risk from Covid, but unfortunately there are exceptions.

    Given how much trouble COVID is causing in hospitals as a result of the unvaccinated, the only real option that preserves civil liberties and avoids a biosurveillance state is different hospital care for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. There would be exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. I cannot see any other option working: excluding the unvaccinated from society (either by lockdowns or preventing them from accessing public places) is only going to fuel the conspiracy theories that drive much vaccine hesitancy and seem to have provoked riots in parts of Europe.

    You mean don't treat the unvaccinated?
    You can treat them but within limits defined by the resources available in the healthcare system at any point in time.
    You cannot stop treating cancer, in order treat COVID amongst the unvaccinated.
    Problem is. They are taking up oxygen and ICU beds. Pushing them to the back of the queue means a lot will die untreated.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    One sad milestone this week. The last of our Spanish/Portuguese nurses is leaving. We recruited about 10 in 2015. Most went back, or to France/Germany pre pandemic, but being redeployed to ICU was the final straw for the last one. She goes in a fortnight albeit with British dual nationality, but I don't think she will return.

    A lot of staff have had enough and are talking of going too, even Mrs Foxy and I are increasingly talking about it.

    Please don't go Foxy, the NHS is barely surviving as it is.
    Not planning to yet, but doing anything at the moment is like wading in treacle, hard work to make minimal progress. No beds, staff shortages, morale in the dumps, patients with loads of neglected conditions over the last 18 months. It really is no longer much of a pleasure, and generally I love my job and have great colleagues and juniors.

    One thing too is that while I haven't really been locked down is that my habits have changed. I went to my first meal out last week in over 6 months. It was nice, but used to be nearly a weekly event. I have re-learnt to enjoy simple pleasures such as reading, music, gardening, cooking, walking my dog across the fields, visiting the Isle of Wight family etc. In short, the cost of my leisure activities has reduced quite noticeably, and the simple life appeals more each day.
    Anecdotally am hearing much of this. Taking fewer hours, or changing jobs for less pay and less hassle. My brother just quit yesterday for less pay but better hours. They realised they simply don't need the money that much anymore. If they ever did.
    Yes and it is not just a British phenomenon. The Atlantic broke it down in several ways: the Great Resignation, the Great Rudeness, the Great Reset and the Great Reshuffling.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/great-resignation-accelerating/620382/

    I don't think that I will quit medicine, but I may well "retire and return" on pension plus 50% part time, perhaps in another part of the country, or just doing locums when I fancy. Mrs Foxy would quite like to move to Wilts/Dorset area, where she has family.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,590
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Official figures show the UK has recorded 61 COVID-19 related deaths and 40,004 positive cases of the virus in the latest 24-hour period

    For more on this and other news visit http://news.sky.com

    40,004 (+9.4%) 61 deaths (-5.9%) admissions 881 (-4.7%)
    Never worth looking at sunday's, the numbers are always down. Compare the 7 day average and do not try to kid yourself and other people. Bit like using subsamples.
    The numbers have shown the falls for sometime now, apart from infections, and there is no evidence admissions or sadly deaths are rising

    Indeed my daughter and her family have had positive tests this last week but they are working from home whilst isolating

    The does seem to be quite a few locally contacting covid but the vaccine and boosters are working and keeping them out of hospital
    Unfortunately the vaccine and boosters are not working for those who refused to have them, the same people who are responsible for reducing the NHS to its knees going into the winter months.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

    My patience with them is wearing thin too. It's time to make the life of the unvaccinated difficult, rather than watch the NHS disintegrate and in response impose further restrictions on the substantial majority who have done the right thing.
    I agree. Vaccine passports for pubs and sporting events have always seemed to me to be a sensible way of incentivising the stupid. The obvious Darwinian benefit is just too slow and the consequences for others too severe to let this go on.
    You already have that rubbish in Scotland and there's no evidence it's made a blind bit of difference.
This discussion has been closed.