"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
That is a bit of a myth put about by those who want to justify the absurd levels of pension offered to public sector, and while it was perhaps the case in about 1980, it certainly isn't now. And if public sector pay is a little lower (evidence only suggests a little lower and in fact during last Labour government it was actually higher) then by all means, let's even it out. Pay them a little more and put them on the average pension achieved by the equivalent private sector worker. Then improve the pensions for all. Why should greedy public sector workers get all the pension benefits?
Since the Labour Government left in 2010 - public sector pay increases have been minimal but hey continue your fantasy that there is money to be saved by kicking public sector workers...
It's also relevant that over the last 15 years or so an awful lot of the lowest paid public sector jobs have been contracted out to the private sector, on lower wages than were paid in the public sector. This has had some impact on both private sector average earnings and public sector average earnings.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
I have to say that was also my gut reaction also, but based upon nothing whatsoever.
I thought of progressive rates so those on low incomes could keep more, but it does mean that the higher rates have to be higher and I do like the simplicity of your suggestion and you have still protected the poorest anyway.
Obviously you don't have to sell this to me, but I struggle to understand why more are not sold on the idea, particularly those who want a smaller state and those who want to protect the vulnerable. I guess people who don't look at the details think it is a magic money tree idea (which it isn't).
The Tories look so useless and incompetent that if Starmer literally sits in a chair and does nothing, at this rate he will be the most popular PM since Blair.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11m The Russians appear to be being systematically beaten everywhere. How soon before it becomes clear to their senior leaders that there is no military point in fighting on?
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
"No child safeguarding? No sick or holiday pay? No construction site safety? No maternity rights? No protection from discrimination? No food hygiene standards? No environmental laws? No fire laws? More exploitation? More sewage dumping? More poisoning, maiming & industrial deaths?"
Forgive me @Beibheirli_C , because we normally agree on so much, but there can be significant savings to be made in the public sector without degrading the important things mentioned there. The most significant of all would be the alignment of the bloated public sector pension system so that it reflected the private sector. This would save huge sums. The problem is that politicians won't do it because it would negatively impact them too.
Again - a great idea except that public sector pay including pensions ain't much different from private sector pay with pensions - the difference mostly comes down to the split between pay and pension.
So you can cut Public sector pensions but you will need to pay them more as many accept low pay in return for their better pension plan...
I guess you are looking at well paid chief executive salaries and ignore elsewhere where a public sector planner say earns £35,000 but would be on £45,000+ in the private sector...
That is a bit of a myth put about by those who want to justify the absurd levels of pension offered to public sector, and while it was perhaps the case in about 1980, it certainly isn't now. And if public sector pay is a little lower (evidence only suggests a little lower and in fact during last Labour government it was actually higher) then by all means, let's even it out. Pay them a little more and put them on the average pension achieved by the equivalent private sector worker. Then improve the pensions for all. Why should greedy public sector workers get all the pension benefits?
Since the Labour Government left in 2010 - public sector pay increases have been minimal but hey continue your fantasy that there is money to be saved by kicking public sector workers...
It's also relevant that over the last 15 years or so an awful lot of the lowest paid public sector jobs have been contracted out to the private sector, on lower wages than were paid in the public sector. This has had some impact on both private sector average earnings and public sector average earnings.
This private vs public crap must end under a Labour Government.
There are crap public sector enterprises. There are crap private sector enterprises.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
I think somewhere between 45% (ha!) and 50% might add up.
We effectively have UBI already - you are just forced to jump through various humiliating hoops to get it.
Everyone paying the same headline marginal tax rate has democratic advantages.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
Abolishing cliff edges would mean people would work more, as work would always pay, which means the state would get more net tax as a result and GDP would grow by people being able to do more.
It would abolish the "I can't do that, I'll end up in the 60% tax bracket" at £100k or "I can't do more than 16 hours, I'll lose my benefits" mentality on UC and so on.
As I said the numbers were chosen as round numbers, because it makes explaining the concept easier on round numbers, but it is reasonably similar to what we currently have so should be reasonably achievable.
10k basic income. 50% tax on everything above 20k. Abolition of state pension, NI, housing, child, benefit Disability benefit to be kept. Dividend tax to 31% (So the corp tax can't be gamed by PSCs) Free childcare from 1 years old. Would that work ?
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Clive Lewis for Lucy Powell I will give you, although I should note he's a rather loose cannon as well (talking about shagging goats was not a clever idea).
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Do you rate Mcfadden? How about Ashworth what does he add or Peter Kyle or Nick Thomas Symonds or Reynolds Reed Mcmahon
Cant think of any merits of any of those to be honest
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
It might not as @BartholomewRoberts was guessing, but as he says whatever it take to make it work.
But note he did not say 30% he said 40% and you also have to take into account the removal of personal allowances.
There is nothing magic about this. The tax take is the same as before (net of the universal income), but the system is much much better.
The 45p fiasco shows the Tory leadership cannot boss its way around, threatening deselections and so on. Their only option was to proceed carefully, no drama, restoring orderly government after Johnson. Now, all gone up in smoke in ten days. https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1576881629355978753
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11m The Russians appear to be being systematically beaten everywhere. How soon before it becomes clear to their senior leaders that there is no military point in fighting on?
Only when the children of Muscovites would have to be drafted I suspect.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
No taper, that's the point. You start paying tax on your first pound of reported earnings, but until £25k of earnings that is more than cancelled out net by your UBI. At over £25k of reported earnings you are now a net contributor.
Oh and of course as I'd wrap this into one system, all earnings would be taxed at the 40% rate whether they're earned or unearned, rather than two separate tax rates depending upon whether its NI applicable or non-NI at the minute.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11m The Russians appear to be being systematically beaten everywhere. How soon before it becomes clear to their senior leaders that there is no military point in fighting on?
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
No taper, that's the point. You start paying tax on your first pound of reported earnings, but until £25k of earnings that is more than cancelled out net by your UBI. At over £25k of reported earnings you are now a net contributor.
Oh and of course as I'd wrap this into one system, all earnings would be taxed at the 40% rate whether they're earned or unearned, rather than two separate tax rates depending upon whether its NI applicable or non-NI at the minute.
Ah, I had misunderstood it because I hadn't seen that part. As @OnlyLivingBoy might say historians need to learn to pay attention to detail
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
Not to pass comment on Bart's figures but the more you read about a flat tax (it has been some time since I did so) the more attractive it is. I think however that it is in the one of those sensible ideas which will never, ever come to pass bucket.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
Abolishing cliff edges would mean people would work more, as work would always pay, which means the state would get more net tax as a result and GDP would grow by people being able to do more.
It would abolish the "I can't do that, I'll end up in the 60% tax bracket" at £100k or "I can't do more than 16 hours, I'll lose my benefits" mentality on UC and so on.
As I said the numbers were chosen as round numbers, because it makes explaining the concept easier on round numbers, but it is reasonably similar to what we currently have so should be reasonably achievable.
The cliff edges are bonkers and should go. It would be interesting to see what the numbers would be to neutral. They might be shockingly high in some places. It's the losers in any change that you need to worry about. Where would the losers be? My hunch is that they would be in the upper middle.
🚨 Treasury minister Chris Philp says no business with under 500 staff will be subject to business regulation
So that is most food manufacturers, most child care providers, most care homes.......
This is another policy that won't survive contact with reality, Tory MPs will smash through a rebellion.
Its not a policy Max, its a complete misrepresentation/lie.
The proposal is that "small business" is re-defined as 500 staff, so regulations that don't apply to small businesses presently at 0-249 employees won't apply to those with 250 to 499 either.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
I think you are misunderstanding @ydoethur or I am misunderstanding you. The beauty of this is there are no tapers. You get an untaxed universal income. Everything you then earn is taxed (and in Barts model at a flat rate). Simple.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
Abolishing cliff edges would mean people would work more, as work would always pay, which means the state would get more net tax as a result and GDP would grow by people being able to do more.
It would abolish the "I can't do that, I'll end up in the 60% tax bracket" at £100k or "I can't do more than 16 hours, I'll lose my benefits" mentality on UC and so on.
As I said the numbers were chosen as round numbers, because it makes explaining the concept easier on round numbers, but it is reasonably similar to what we currently have so should be reasonably achievable.
The cliff edges are bonkers and should go. It would be interesting to see what the numbers would be to neutral. They might be shockingly high in some places. It's the losers in any change that you need to worry about. Where would the losers be? My hunch is that they would be in the upper middle.
Our whole tax system is bonkers and should go.
The issue is I don't see how it could be done from the appalling fiscal position we're in, as there's no cushion to get it wrong. It's a card that could only easily be played from a position of strength and we're a long way off that if we ever shall be again.
🚨 Treasury minister Chris Philp says no business with under 500 staff will be subject to business regulation
So that is most food manufacturers, most child care providers, most care homes.......
This is another policy that won't survive contact with reality, Tory MPs will smash through a rebellion.
Its not a policy Max, its a complete misrepresentation/lie.
The proposal is that "small business" is re-defined as 500 staff, so regulations that don't apply to small businesses presently at 0-249 employees won't apply to those with 250 to 499 either.
Not the abolition of every regulation.
There's turnover limits on "small" and "medium" businesses. One of the regulations is that a small business can issue abbreviated accounts whereas a medium must show full. It's not a worker's rights bonfire.
10k basic income. 50% tax on everything above 20k. Abolition of state pension, NI, housing, child, benefit Disability benefit to be kept. Dividend tax to 31% (So the corp tax can't be gamed by PSCs) Free childcare from 1 years old. Would that work ?
I think you need to keep the same marginal rate for all non-UBI income, so there should be no thresholds. 40% (or 50%) tax throughout.
Would we need a dividend tax? Just tax it when taken as income. Maybe charge tax on sales but give tax relief on purchases?
I can see the need for disability benefit where the recipient has extra costs but you lose the whole point of it if you have too many exceptions. Might be best treated outside of the tax system entirely?
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
I think you are misunderstanding @ydoethur or I am misunderstanding you. The beauty of this is there are no tapers. You get an untaxed universal income. Everything you then earn is taxed (and in Barts model at a flat rate). Simple.
The will of the population could be to give one square cm from each of the regions. Although I suspect that would be far, far too much for the Ukrainians.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
No taper, that's the point. You start paying tax on your first pound of reported earnings, but until £25k of earnings that is more than cancelled out net by your UBI. At over £25k of reported earnings you are now a net contributor.
Oh and of course as I'd wrap this into one system, all earnings would be taxed at the 40% rate whether they're earned or unearned, rather than two separate tax rates depending upon whether its NI applicable or non-NI at the minute.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Clive Lewis for Lucy Powell I will give you, although I should note he's a rather loose cannon as well (talking about shagging goats was not a clever idea).
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Do you rate Mcfadden? How about Ashworth what does he add or Peter Kyle or Nick Thomas Symonds or Reynolds Reed Mcmahon
Cant think of any merits of any of those to be honest
McFadden is very good, regardless of his politics. His calm, forensic and measured attacks on the government's economic policies are excellent. Worth listening to in the HoC and in media interviews.
Yes, Liz Truss is in office but not in power. Picking a Cabinet of sycophants means there's too many enemies on the back benches with nothing to do other than rebel.
10k basic income. 50% tax on everything above 20k. Abolition of state pension, NI, housing, child, benefit Disability benefit to be kept. Dividend tax to 31% (So the corp tax can't be gamed by PSCs) Free childcare from 1 years old. Would that work ?
I think you need to keep the same marginal rate for all non-UBI income, so there should be no thresholds. 40% (or 50%) tax throughout.
Would we need a dividend tax? Just tax it when taken as income. Maybe charge tax on sales but give tax relief on purchases?
I can see the need for disability benefit where the recipient has extra costs but you lose the whole point of it if you have too many exceptions. Might be best treated outside of the tax system entirely?
I think disability is the one exception that has to be kept, everyone is a child and old at some point - not everyone is disabled.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
The numbers Bart used were simply representations at those levels. It is not the case it would be stepped in that way. It would be a continuous sliding scale. Someone earning £49K would still be paying 40% tax and would still be receiving the £10K UBI. So their tax in real money would be only slightly less than the person earning £50K (I am not bright enough to do the rather simple maths but hopefully you get my drift) .
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
No taper, that's the point. You start paying tax on your first pound of reported earnings, but until £25k of earnings that is more than cancelled out net by your UBI. At over £25k of reported earnings you are now a net contributor.
Oh and of course as I'd wrap this into one system, all earnings would be taxed at the 40% rate whether they're earned or unearned, rather than two separate tax rates depending upon whether its NI applicable or non-NI at the minute.
You'd need to make it 50% to work.
Then do it.
Better than having 70% for those on UC or 60% for those on other cliffs etc
Whatever it takes to make it work. But tax all income the same, not the current scenario of taxing a graduate on £25k at 50% marginally as present, but a landlord earning the same amount only 20% at present.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Yes, Liz Truss is in office but not in power. Picking a Cabinet of sycophants means there's too many enemies on the back benches with nothing to do other than rebel.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Out of the two of you, you are the one who has been threatening to vote Tory because you don't like the position of your own party. I would suggest that makes you far more of a Tory enabler than CHB.
Morning all. After a very enjoyable weekend its back to reality and the long, slow death of the Tory party. Theyre going to be shortly reduced to changing leader to try and bounce enough to save 150 seats. That may well not work. If the polls are still well over 20 plus by Xmas (ive seen a comment of 'mother of god! about tonights Redfield) I fully expect something new to emerge. Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now
10k basic income. 50% tax on everything above 20k. Abolition of state pension, NI, housing, child, benefit Disability benefit to be kept. Dividend tax to 31% (So the corp tax can't be gamed by PSCs) Free childcare from 1 years old. Would that work ?
I think you need to keep the same marginal rate for all non-UBI income, so there should be no thresholds. 40% (or 50%) tax throughout.
Would we need a dividend tax? Just tax it when taken as income. Maybe charge tax on sales but give tax relief on purchases?
I can see the need for disability benefit where the recipient has extra costs but you lose the whole point of it if you have too many exceptions. Might be best treated outside of the tax system entirely?
I think disability is the one exception that has to be kept, everyone is a child and old at some point - not everyone is disabled.
Absolutely, but as someone else said, that then is dealt with outside of the tax system.
Child benefits could be wrapped into UBI as a UBI for children.
I'd potentially abolish Student Loans as part of this system. Since its just an age-discriminatory 9% graduate tax anyway, and since we're wanting to tax all income the same in this proposal, maybe abolish that. Not put too much thought into that though.
@BartholomewRoberts I'm feeling rather chuffed. I think we are a roll here. Shame it won't make a blind bit of difference, but we can hope. This should not be a left/right issue, so should just be about getting people to understand the idea.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
The biggest enablers of the Tories were Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.
Morning all. After a very enjoyable weekend its back to reality and the long, slow death of the Tory party. Theyre going to be shortly reduced to changing leader to try and bounce enough to save 150 seats. That may well not work. If the polls are still well over 20 plus by Xmas (ive seen a comment of 'mother of god! about tonights Redfield) I fully expect something new to emerge. Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now
Labour are clearing up, 30 points ahead is better than Johnson did during COVID when we were asking when Labour would split
I just heard a Tory MP saying she was paying 65% tax, I am not sure she understands how our tax system works
She potentially is, marginally. That's the whole cliff edge discussion we have been talking about. Tax rates swing from 20% to 70% depending upon circumstances.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
Abolishing cliff edges would mean people would work more, as work would always pay, which means the state would get more net tax as a result and GDP would grow by people being able to do more.
It would abolish the "I can't do that, I'll end up in the 60% tax bracket" at £100k or "I can't do more than 16 hours, I'll lose my benefits" mentality on UC and so on.
As I said the numbers were chosen as round numbers, because it makes explaining the concept easier on round numbers, but it is reasonably similar to what we currently have so should be reasonably achievable.
The cliff edges are bonkers and should go. It would be interesting to see what the numbers would be to neutral. They might be shockingly high in some places. It's the losers in any change that you need to worry about. Where would the losers be? My hunch is that they would be in the upper middle.
It seems to me that the biggest losers would be those who are currently (legally) gaming the system to their own tax advantage.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
The biggest enablers of the Tories were Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.
This is the first time I have ever agreed with you. I enabled the Tories, I accept it. Never again.
Morning all. After a very enjoyable weekend its back to reality and the long, slow death of the Tory party. Theyre going to be shortly reduced to changing leader to try and bounce enough to save 150 seats. That may well not work. If the polls are still well over 20 plus by Xmas (ive seen a comment of 'mother of god! about tonights Redfield) I fully expect something new to emerge. Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now
Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now Starmer's occupied the centre ground. Now they won't stay there but it's a reason Labour are polling over 50% in some polls - remember when May was at peak unpopularity during the Euro elections Labour's polling was also dire.
Morning all. After a very enjoyable weekend its back to reality and the long, slow death of the Tory party. Theyre going to be shortly reduced to changing leader to try and bounce enough to save 150 seats. That may well not work. If the polls are still well over 20 plus by Xmas (ive seen a comment of 'mother of god! about tonights Redfield) I fully expect something new to emerge. Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now
Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now Starmer's occupied the centre ground. Now they won't stay there but it's a reason Labour are polling over 50% in some polls - remember when May was at peak unpopularity during the Euro elections Labour's polling was also dire.
If Corbyn was still here we'd be back there again.
@BartholomewRoberts I'm feeling rather chuffed. I think we are a roll here. Shame it won't make a blind bit of difference, but we can hope. This should not be a left/right issue, so should just be about getting people to understand the idea.
Landlords would hate it, with the withdrawal of HB.
You make it fiscally neutral, by getting rid of personal allowances and progressive tax rates so the net effect is zero in terms of tax revenues vs universal income payments. It removes all vulnerable people from poverty and ensures people who are due benefits don't miss out. It removes exploitation of the benefits system as there is nothing to exploit anymore. It simplifies tax, it removes just about all benefits, it removes maternity and sickness benefits and unemployment benefits, it removes state pension and student maintenance loans. A bucket load of civil servants can be removed and the DWP just about closed down. It also provides a little help for people wishing to take a risk on starting their own business by giving a small cushion to start with.
I could go on. All those benefits and savings at zero cost.
You either:
1 - Have an unconditional basic income 2 - Have a conditional basic income 3 - Have no basic income.
We have to pick one.
The third is unacceptable in a modern society (the poor, unemployed, ill, and elderly are abandoned to die).
The second is the way we do it at the moment, with lengthy and convoluted forms and processes (where the least able to fill them out have to fill them out and "get it right," as an error or misunderstanding could cause them to be cut off), huge numbers of staff, often lengthy delays to process, and not infrequent miscarriages of decisions.
The first looks expensive, but there are plausible suggestions for how it could be funded by the withdrawal of the tax-free allowance (which is superseded by a basic income in any case), and could be rolled out in stages (so not universal to begin with, but unconditional, and stepping up the net as we progress).
There would probably still be the need for some very specific targeted extra benefits (eg for disabled people), but the number and scope of these would be hugely slashed.
🚨 Treasury minister Chris Philp says no business with under 500 staff will be subject to business regulation
So that is most food manufacturers, most child care providers, most care homes.......
This is another policy that won't survive contact with reality, Tory MPs will smash through a rebellion.
Its not a policy Max, its a complete misrepresentation/lie.
The proposal is that "small business" is re-defined as 500 staff, so regulations that don't apply to small businesses presently at 0-249 employees won't apply to those with 250 to 499 either.
Not the abolition of every regulation.
Maybe, but this video gave your opponents enormous amounts of ammunition -
10k basic income. 50% tax on everything above 20k. Abolition of state pension, NI, housing, child, benefit Disability benefit to be kept. Dividend tax to 31% (So the corp tax can't be gamed by PSCs) Free childcare from 1 years old. Would that work ?
I think you need to keep the same marginal rate for all non-UBI income, so there should be no thresholds. 40% (or 50%) tax throughout.
Would we need a dividend tax? Just tax it when taken as income. Maybe charge tax on sales but give tax relief on purchases?
I can see the need for disability benefit where the recipient has extra costs but you lose the whole point of it if you have too many exceptions. Might be best treated outside of the tax system entirely?
Re your last para it is the only benefit that I have thought of that needs to stay in some way. There are people with disabilities or conditions that have serious extra costs, usually of a capital nature, but not always (medicine/electricity), that are beyond a universal income. As you say best treated outside of the tax system.
Morning all. After a very enjoyable weekend its back to reality and the long, slow death of the Tory party. Theyre going to be shortly reduced to changing leader to try and bounce enough to save 150 seats. That may well not work. If the polls are still well over 20 plus by Xmas (ive seen a comment of 'mother of god! about tonights Redfield) I fully expect something new to emerge. Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now
Labour are clearing up, 30 points ahead is better than Johnson did during COVID when we were asking when Labour would split
Yes, and the country requires an alternative to a 500 seat Labour landslide. As it stands ill reluctantly enable a Starmer government as Truss town is a crudhole, but a decent centre or right alternative appears and Labour can do one and stay in opposition.
🚨 Treasury minister Chris Philp says no business with under 500 staff will be subject to business regulation
So that is most food manufacturers, most child care providers, most care homes.......
This is another policy that won't survive contact with reality, Tory MPs will smash through a rebellion.
Its not a policy Max, its a complete misrepresentation/lie.
The proposal is that "small business" is re-defined as 500 staff, so regulations that don't apply to small businesses presently at 0-249 employees won't apply to those with 250 to 499 either.
Not the abolition of every regulation.
Maybe, but this video gave your opponents enormous amounts of ammunition -
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 @JulianRoepcke · 6m #NewsMap The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing. Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
When you’re down to “Gove and Shapps” it’s time for a General Election
Aye, and that's the supposed sane 'internal opposition'. The Gov't has fucked up but Gove is vicariously living his dream (Never ever to be realised) of being PM with his briefing against them. I suspect Rishi is planning to do a Clegg. An internal Tory reorganisation won't do, we need Labour in power now.
You make it fiscally neutral, by getting rid of personal allowances and progressive tax rates so the net effect is zero in terms of tax revenues vs universal income payments. It removes all vulnerable people from poverty and ensures people who are due benefits don't miss out. It removes exploitation of the benefits system as there is nothing to exploit anymore. It simplifies tax, it removes just about all benefits, it removes maternity and sickness benefits and unemployment benefits, it removes state pension and student maintenance loans. A bucket load of civil servants can be removed and the DWP just about closed down. It also provides a little help for people wishing to take a risk on starting their own business by giving a small cushion to start with.
I could go on. All those benefits and savings at zero cost.
All the piss ants who want an ant hill to piss from in DWP won’t have people to abuse, though….
So we will have a huge number of clipboardistas looking for victims.
10k basic income. 50% tax on everything above 20k. Abolition of state pension, NI, housing, child, benefit Disability benefit to be kept. Dividend tax to 31% (So the corp tax can't be gamed by PSCs) Free childcare from 1 years old. Would that work ?
I think you need to keep the same marginal rate for all non-UBI income, so there should be no thresholds. 40% (or 50%) tax throughout.
Would we need a dividend tax? Just tax it when taken as income. Maybe charge tax on sales but give tax relief on purchases?
I can see the need for disability benefit where the recipient has extra costs but you lose the whole point of it if you have too many exceptions. Might be best treated outside of the tax system entirely?
Re your last para it is the only benefit that I have thought of that needs to stay in some way. There are people with disabilities or conditions that have serious extra costs, usually of a capital nature, but not always (medicine/electricity), that are beyond a universal income. As you say best treated outside of the tax system.
The sometimes counterintuitive key for me is that we don't reintroduce complications in the tax system, so no means testing on anything.
So if we're giving support to disabled people, then give support to everyone who is disabled at the appropriate rate. Whether that individual is unemployed, or a millionaire, let them have the support the disabled require.
Rather than saying "why give support to disabled millionaires" the answer should be that the millionaire's taxes should be getting paid via the tax system anyway, so we are not taxing their disability on top of that.
Interestingly, the local paper had a wrap around ad for Drax this week, going big on the benefits of Drax to local jobs (which are real) and the apparently planned, but still mythical, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage)
I was talking to a Danish colleague a couple of weeks ago who said their biomass plants take wood from Russia. So biomass has challenges.
One of the other big shames about Russia. Alongside its oil and gas and agricultural resources it has the Taiga. Vast swathes of forest much of which (though not all) is not particularly biodiverse and is suitable for arboriculture on a massive scale.
I just ordered wood pellets for my biomass boiler. £560+VAT per ton. About double what I paid 6 months ago. So, oil, gas, wood.... good job I've got quite a bit of wood seasoning for the wood burner.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
Keep it simple.
The UBI is a benefit paid to everyone. Everyone. It’s never taxed, withdrawn etc. It is paid by HMRC into a nominated account. It has nothing to do with your employer (if any)
Julian Röpcke🇺🇦 @JulianRoepcke · 6m #NewsMap The Russian front in eastern Kharkiv oblast is collapsing. Ukrainian forces liberated Nyzhe Zolone, Pidlyman, Nyznya Zhuravka, Borova and Shyikivka.
I've lost track of how many - is that now rout sixty six?
Putin is certainly getting plenty of kicks
It’s definitely looking more and more like The Hundred Days of 1918 - the Russians can’t seem to form a line they can hold.
"Captain Ihor Nazarenko, 55, a [Ukr] tank commander who had parked beside the road, roared with laughter at the rapid retreat. “They are running, and we are running after them,” he said."
Probably, although EM UK does wet his pants over everything. 25 to 35 i reckon
Wish I could bet on that
There has bern such a massive sudden movement in feeling polling is going to be very skittish for a while, its hard to accurately model in the short term. Worth watching the next few weeks local by elections. Last week was not too bad for the Tories despite the polls but there'd have been some early postals, so we wait to see if real votes start to collapse or if its polling anger overstating the position on the ground. Canvassers will know how bad/good it is of course
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
Keep it simple.
The UBI is a benefit paid to everyone. Everyone. It’s never taxed, withdrawn etc. It is paid by HMRC into a nominated account. It has nothing to do with your employer (if any)
All income is taxed - the UBI is your
- Tax free allowance - Benefits - Pension
So 20% starts (say) on the first pound you earn.
20% ! Norway could introduce that system overnight, not sure many overs could at such a low rate..
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Clive Lewis for Lucy Powell I will give you, although I should note he's a rather loose cannon as well (talking about shagging goats was not a clever idea).
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Do you rate Mcfadden? How about
Cant think of any merits of any of those to be honest
McFadden is very good, regardless of his politics. His calm, forensic and measured attacks on the government's economic policies are excellent. Worth listening to in the HoC and in media interviews.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Do you think these are good candidates really?
Do you think Labour was better as a broad church like under Blair or as a purely factional enterprise under SKS despite him promising the opposite
Do you think Ashworth, Peter Kyle, Nick Thomas Symonds, Reynolds, Reed ,Mcmahon are?
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Clive Lewis for Lucy Powell I will give you, although I should note he's a rather loose cannon as well (talking about shagging goats was not a clever idea).
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Do you rate Mcfadden? How about
Cant think of any merits of any of those to be honest
McFadden is very good, regardless of his politics. His calm, forensic and measured attacks on the government's economic policies are excellent. Worth listening to in the HoC and in media interviews.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Do you think these are good candidates really?
Do you think Labour was better as a broad church like under Blair or as a purely factional enterprise under SKS despite him promising the opposite
Do you think Ashworth, Peter Kyle, Nick Thomas Symonds, Reynolds, Reed ,Mcmahon are?
What is factional about SKS's Labour, give one example?
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Out of the two of you, you are the one who has been threatening to vote Tory because you don't like the position of your own party. I would suggest that makes you far more of a Tory enabler than CHB.
Labour is not my Party.
Divisive Factionalism means LAB would fail against any decent Tory Leader
Fortunately for SKS the Tories are in complete disarray
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Clive Lewis for Lucy Powell I will give you, although I should note he's a rather loose cannon as well (talking about shagging goats was not a clever idea).
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Do you rate Mcfadden? How about
Cant think of any merits of any of those to be honest
McFadden is very good, regardless of his politics. His calm, forensic and measured attacks on the government's economic policies are excellent. Worth listening to in the HoC and in media interviews.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Do you think these are good candidates really?
Do you think Labour was better as a broad church like under Blair or as a purely factional enterprise under SKS despite him promising the opposite
Do you think Ashworth, Peter Kyle, Nick Thomas Symonds, Reynolds, Reed ,Mcmahon are?
Labour is a broader church today than it was under Corbyn. The direction of travel is a good one.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
It might not as @BartholomewRoberts was guessing, but as he says whatever it take to make it work.
But note he did not say 30% he said 40% and you also have to take into account the removal of personal allowances.
There is nothing magic about this. The tax take is the same as before (net of the universal income), but the system is much much better.
There are a couple of complications with such a system, but overall I much prefer it. The main issue is around who qualifies.
Presumably a combination of citizenship and residency. But does that then act to dissuade the old from retiring abroad? Is that the policy outcome you want? I don't know enough about how cross-border pensions work at the moment to think about the implications.
It would also mean a drastic increase in the tax rate for immigrants (at least until they gained citizenship). You might see this as a positive, because you could probably then drop a lot of the immigration and work permit rules and rely on the tax disincentive as a way to ensure that only well-paid people were encouraged to immigrate (assuming that's your desired outcome), but I'm guessing the staffing effect on the NHS, for example, would be pretty disastrous.
I'm sure there are ways to deal with such issues, but there are quite a few such details that need to be worked out.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Barry Gardner should be in jail for taking money from the enemy, how he has got away with it so far goodness knows, Clive Lewis should be in the Tower for using Queens Mourning to attack the monarchy, and Butler should be giraffe attendant in a zoo.
If you think any of those three thick and odious people have any modicum and talent at all, God Help You 😠
At least Truss and Kwarteng now know they are on notice from their own side, and they also demonstrated they can pull the trigger on Truss next year if required
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
How do you taper it?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
Keep it simple.
The UBI is a benefit paid to everyone. Everyone. It’s never taxed, withdrawn etc. It is paid by HMRC into a nominated account. It has nothing to do with your employer (if any)
All income is taxed - the UBI is your
- Tax free allowance - Benefits - Pension
So 20% starts (say) on the first pound you earn.
20% ! Norway could introduce that system overnight, not sure many overs could at such a low rate..
You’d have the existing progressive rates on top. Just that the tax system starts at zero, since UBI has replaced the tax free allowance.
The reason that I’d go with UBI direct from government, rather than have the employer deal with it is to make it simpler.
Get a job - nothing required Lose a job - nothing required.
UBI starts at 18 - maybe a reduced rate for children? - continues until death.
On the left of the Labour Party there are two genuinely able and highly experienced figures who might make it into a Labour shadow cabinet. McDonnell, who was the senior figure in the party under Corbyn and for all I hate his guts was a big figure with a serious intellect. And Jon Trickett, leader of Leeds Council for seven years and a very effective one. Both are over 70 and McDonnell at least has had quite serious health problems.
Who among the younger generation on the left would be better than members of the current front bench? Let's remember Long-Bailey blew herself up a la Corbyn, so she showed appalling judgement. Who else might make it on merit?
You think the shadow cabinet are there on merit?
Bless
Well, in that case, say who should be in there on merit from the left. Or, to put it another way, answer the question.
Give me three names of Left politicians other than McDonnell and Trickett who might get into the shadow cabinet because they're better choices than any three (named) people already there, and I'll concede your point.
Clive Lewis, Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler to replace Pat Mcfadden David Lammy and Lucy Powell
Clive Lewis for Lucy Powell I will give you, although I should note he's a rather loose cannon as well (talking about shagging goats was not a clever idea).
Dawn Butler is a curious case, because she started her career with that weird non-endorsement endorsement by Obama and since then has gone on to shoot her mouth off at every opportunity including her remarks about giraffes. She has of course also been ill. At the same time, while erratic, she's not stupid. She might do OK if she can learn when not to say something. Equally, I would say she wouldn't be a candidate ahead of Lammy or Mcfadden.
Barry Gardiner, an enthusiast for nuclear power and a man who took money from the Chinese intelligence services, albeit unknowingly? Hmmm. Not convinced.
I suspect your hatred for Mcfadden in particular is because he dared to call out Corbyn.
Do you rate Mcfadden? How about
Cant think of any merits of any of those to be honest
McFadden is very good, regardless of his politics. His calm, forensic and measured attacks on the government's economic policies are excellent. Worth listening to in the HoC and in media interviews.
Dawn "Jamie Oliver stop appropriating Caribbean culture" Butler
Barry "I am running for leader no I am not running yes I am running no I am not running" Gardner.
On an objective basis, the Labour left is fucking screwed. McDonnell was the only intelligent one they had and he won't be in front-line politics ever again.
Does CHB stand for Divisive Factionalist Tory Enabler in Dyslexia land?
Do you think these are good candidates really?
Do you think Labour was better as a broad church like under Blair or as a purely factional enterprise under SKS despite him promising the opposite
Do you think Ashworth, Peter Kyle, Nick Thomas Symonds, Reynolds, Reed ,Mcmahon are?
Labour is a broader church today than it was under Corbyn.
If Starmer is clever, he could release the seven reports from the DWP into the brutal, cruel uselessness of the current welfare system that the Tories are ashamed of and have been suppressing, and use that as a springboard to legitimise newer, fresher discussion of UBI or associated policies.
I do not understand the mind of a leftist who says they hate Labour so much they'll actually vote for Liz Truss's Party.
Just bizarre.
It certainly is impossible to understand the minds of leftists. Saw one of these creatures buying a coffee in Starbucks the other day. Red "Solidarity" socialist tee-shirt, red-back-pack, red trousers. Red boots.
Texting on her red Iphone, wearing a red Apple Watch. Paying with a Barclaycard Gold card.
We have listened. All it took was tanking the pound, wrecking the economy, wiping $500billion of the market and the Bank of England spending £65billion to save pension funds. We get it.
When you’re down to “Gove and Shapps” it’s time for a General Election
There's a definite flaw with our current system. At the moment, if a party does lose the will to govern while in office, the incentive is to drag out the misery because of the one-in-a-million chance that something, anything will turn up. Would making coalitions the norm help? Maybe.
The last couple of years of Major were painful, even when his government was doing the rightish sorts of things. The psychodrama this time round could be even worse. At some level, Major had the serenity and sense to captain a doomed ship in a reasonable way. Truss has clearly been dreaming of being a radical reforming Premier since she was at school. Now she has the job, and she's not going to be able to do much (any?) of whatever is written in her teenage diaries.
Why? We have it now, as welfare, but with insane cliff edges of tax rate changes.
Make it universal, abolish the DWP, and make it a single, flat tax system with no cliff edges.
I envisaged progressive tax rates, but I am interested in the flat rate tax idea.
It would have to be reasonably high (I have no idea what so I could be wrong) to recoup the universal income cost which is why I suggested progressive, but I can see many benefits in having a flat rate, in particular incentives to earn/work.
Do you have any idea what the rate would be? Obviously there is the benefit of removing the personal allowances (no longer needed) which we both highlighted.
Not sure the numbers are complicated. I would think possibly something along the lines of 40% maybe? Whatever it takes to make the system work.
As a hypothetical, since the numbers are easy with this, if you had a £10k UBI and a 40% tax then.
Don't work - get £10k.
Earn £10k - get £6k net, net £16k
Earn £20k - get £2k net, net 22k
Earn £25k - get nothing, pay no net tax, net £25k income
Earn £50k - pay £10k in net tax, net £40k take home
Earn £100k - pay £30k in net tax, net £70k take home
etc
Tax free allowances, Income Tax, NI, Universal Credit, Unemployment and potentially State Pension etc could all be abolished as part of the reform.
Not sure that adds up. Call me a cynic, but unless you are claiming this from efficiencies is not possible to have a system that takes less and pays out more. A 30% top rate tax and no NI would cost a lot.
Abolishing cliff edges would mean people would work more, as work would always pay, which means the state would get more net tax as a result and GDP would grow by people being able to do more.
It would abolish the "I can't do that, I'll end up in the 60% tax bracket" at £100k or "I can't do more than 16 hours, I'll lose my benefits" mentality on UC and so on.
As I said the numbers were chosen as round numbers, because it makes explaining the concept easier on round numbers, but it is reasonably similar to what we currently have so should be reasonably achievable.
What about non-doms? Asking for a friend, of course?
Probably, although EM UK does wet his pants over everything. 25 to 35 i reckon
Wish I could bet on that
There has bern such a massive sudden movement in feeling polling is going to be very skittish for a while, its hard to accurately model in the short term. Worth watching the next few weeks local by elections. Last week was not too bad for the Tories despite the polls but there'd have been some early postals, so we wait to see if real votes start to collapse or if its polling anger overstating the position on the ground. Canvassers will know how bad/good it is of course
The polls are unlikely to move rapidly to Truss, but the polls and public opinion by next spring, early summer will determine whether Truss leads into the GE which is very unlikely to be before Oct 24
Comments
I thought of progressive rates so those on low incomes could keep more, but it does mean that the higher rates have to be higher and I do like the simplicity of your suggestion and you have still protected the poorest anyway.
Obviously you don't have to sell this to me, but I struggle to understand why more are not sold on the idea, particularly those who want a smaller state and those who want to protect the vulnerable. I guess people who don't look at the details think it is a magic money tree idea (which it isn't).
The list of what can be abolished is huge.
@andrew_lilico
·
11m
The Russians appear to be being systematically beaten everywhere. How soon before it becomes clear to their senior leaders that there is no military point in fighting on?
I can see how it might be done for the lower levels, but what about when you start charging tax? Do you go from earning £49k and paying no tax to £50k and losing £9k of income? If so I can see an awful lot of people sneakily avoiding it.
There are crap public sector enterprises. There are crap private sector enterprises.
We effectively have UBI already - you are just forced to jump through various humiliating hoops to get it.
Everyone paying the same headline marginal tax rate has democratic advantages.
It would abolish the "I can't do that, I'll end up in the 60% tax bracket" at £100k or "I can't do more than 16 hours, I'll lose my benefits" mentality on UC and so on.
As I said the numbers were chosen as round numbers, because it makes explaining the concept easier on round numbers, but it is reasonably similar to what we currently have so should be reasonably achievable.
50% tax on everything above 20k.
Abolition of state pension, NI, housing, child, benefit
Disability benefit to be kept.
Dividend tax to 31% (So the corp tax can't be gamed by PSCs)
Free childcare from 1 years old.
Would that work ?
Cant think of any merits of any of those to be honest
But note he did not say 30% he said 40% and you also have to take into account the removal of personal allowances.
There is nothing magic about this. The tax take is the same as before (net of the universal income), but the system is much much better.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1576881629355978753
Oh and of course as I'd wrap this into one system, all earnings would be taxed at the 40% rate whether they're earned or unearned, rather than two separate tax rates depending upon whether its NI applicable or non-NI at the minute.
Asked if benefits should rise in line with inflation, he warns ‘that would be my view’ but insists on @TimesRadio: ‘I will wait to see what the whole package’ contains
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1576882012048490496
YouGov 28-29 Sept 2022. Lab lead +33. Best PM Starmer v Truss +29.
The proposal is that "small business" is re-defined as 500 staff, so regulations that don't apply to small businesses presently at 0-249 employees won't apply to those with 250 to 499 either.
Not the abolition of every regulation.
The issue is I don't see how it could be done from the appalling fiscal position we're in, as there's no cushion to get it wrong. It's a card that could only easily be played from a position of strength and we're a long way off that if we ever shall be again.
It's not a worker's rights bonfire.
Would we need a dividend tax? Just tax it when taken as income. Maybe charge tax on sales but give tax relief on purchases?
I can see the need for disability benefit where the recipient has extra costs but you lose the whole point of it if you have too many exceptions. Might be best treated outside of the tax system entirely?
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1576882789252706305
The will of the population could be to give one square cm from each of the regions. Although I suspect that would be far, far too much for the Ukrainians.
Why doesn't Russia just go back to their 1300 borders which would solve a lot of problems?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia
Better than having 70% for those on UC or 60% for those on other cliffs etc
Whatever it takes to make it work. But tax all income the same, not the current scenario of taxing a graduate on £25k at 50% marginally as present, but a landlord earning the same amount only 20% at present.
Liz Truss in hiding at her own party conference
The PM and Chancellor have cancelled a planned visit in Selly Oak this morning
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1576862962438266880
If the polls are still well over 20 plus by Xmas (ive seen a comment of 'mother of god! about tonights Redfield) I fully expect something new to emerge.
Maybe Blair should have launched that new Centrist party, they'd be cleaning up Tories in droves now
Child benefits could be wrapped into UBI as a UBI for children.
I'd potentially abolish Student Loans as part of this system. Since its just an age-discriminatory 9% graduate tax anyway, and since we're wanting to tax all income the same in this proposal, maybe abolish that. Not put too much thought into that though.
Starmer's occupied the centre ground. Now they won't stay there but it's a reason Labour are polling over 50% in some polls - remember when May was at peak unpopularity during the Euro elections Labour's polling was also dire.
Just bizarre.
1 - Have an unconditional basic income
2 - Have a conditional basic income
3 - Have no basic income.
We have to pick one.
The third is unacceptable in a modern society (the poor, unemployed, ill, and elderly are abandoned to die).
The second is the way we do it at the moment, with lengthy and convoluted forms and processes (where the least able to fill them out have to fill them out and "get it right," as an error or misunderstanding could cause them to be cut off), huge numbers of staff, often lengthy delays to process, and not infrequent miscarriages of decisions.
The first looks expensive, but there are plausible suggestions for how it could be funded by the withdrawal of the tax-free allowance (which is superseded by a basic income in any case), and could be rolled out in stages (so not universal to begin with, but unconditional, and stepping up the net as we progress).
There would probably still be the need for some very specific targeted extra benefits (eg for disabled people), but the number and scope of these would be hugely slashed.
When you’re down to “Gove and Shapps” it’s time for a General Election
https://twitter.com/votepoliticsuk/status/1576592779203215360
So 30 pointer with Redfield?
As it stands ill reluctantly enable a Starmer government as Truss town is a crudhole, but a decent centre or right alternative appears and Labour can do one and stay in opposition.
I suspect Rishi is planning to do a Clegg.
An internal Tory reorganisation won't do, we need Labour in power now.
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1576881811413762050
Aubrey Allegretti
@breeallegretti
New: Tory mayor Ben Houchen calls for govt to go further and U-turn on lifting the cap on bankers' bonuses too.
He says it's "unnecessary" and the "wrong time".
The bankers' bonus scheme isn't that bad in the scheme of things...
So we will have a huge number of clipboardistas looking for victims.
So if we're giving support to disabled people, then give support to everyone who is disabled at the appropriate rate. Whether that individual is unemployed, or a millionaire, let them have the support the disabled require.
Rather than saying "why give support to disabled millionaires" the answer should be that the millionaire's taxes should be getting paid via the tax system anyway, so we are not taxing their disability on top of that.
The UBI is a benefit paid to everyone. Everyone. It’s never taxed, withdrawn etc. It is paid by HMRC into a nominated account. It has nothing to do with your employer (if any)
All income is taxed - the UBI is your
- Tax free allowance
- Benefits
- Pension
So 20% starts (say) on the first pound you earn.
"Captain Ihor Nazarenko, 55, a [Ukr] tank commander who had parked beside the road, roared with laughter at the rapid retreat. “They are running, and we are running after them,” he said."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/10/03/world/russia-ukraine-war-news
Ru conscripts being captured have been sent to the front in flip-flops and shorts apparently and are often malnourished by time they are captured.
The Potemkin Army is close to collapse.
Worth watching the next few weeks local by elections. Last week was not too bad for the Tories despite the polls but there'd have been some early postals, so we wait to see if real votes start to collapse or if its polling anger overstating the position on the ground.
Canvassers will know how bad/good it is of course
Do you think Ashworth, Peter Kyle, Nick Thomas Symonds, Reynolds, Reed ,Mcmahon are?
Recall Ashworth served under Corbyn.
Divisive Factionalism means LAB would fail against any decent Tory Leader
Fortunately for SKS the Tories are in complete disarray
Presumably a combination of citizenship and residency. But does that then act to dissuade the old from retiring abroad? Is that the policy outcome you want? I don't know enough about how cross-border pensions work at the moment to think about the implications.
It would also mean a drastic increase in the tax rate for immigrants (at least until they gained citizenship). You might see this as a positive, because you could probably then drop a lot of the immigration and work permit rules and rely on the tax disincentive as a way to ensure that only well-paid people were encouraged to immigrate (assuming that's your desired outcome), but I'm guessing the staffing effect on the NHS, for example, would be pretty disastrous.
I'm sure there are ways to deal with such issues, but there are quite a few such details that need to be worked out.
If you think any of those three thick and odious people have any modicum and talent at all, God Help You 😠
The reason that I’d go with UBI direct from government, rather than have the employer deal with it is to make it simpler.
Get a job - nothing required
Lose a job - nothing required.
UBI starts at 18 - maybe a reduced rate for children? - continues until death.
And why have you brought Corbyn up AGAIN
Texting on her red Iphone, wearing a red Apple Watch. Paying with a Barclaycard Gold card.
The last couple of years of Major were painful, even when his government was doing the rightish sorts of things. The psychodrama this time round could be even worse. At some level, Major had the serenity and sense to captain a doomed ship in a reasonable way. Truss has clearly been dreaming of being a radical reforming Premier since she was at school. Now she has the job, and she's not going to be able to do much (any?) of whatever is written in her teenage diaries.
Looking at the crowd I assume they are most interested in levelling up Surrey to get closer to Kensington and Chelsea!
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1576890521125285888?s=20&t=SC2uBJAwMOlOgymLPHmfew