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 It’s never taxed, withdrawn etc.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.
Essentially extending the state pension to the whole adult population. Cost around £400 billion per year I think ? So the taxes above would need to rise.
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.
You have certainly been on a journey since being a very vociferous supporter of Corbyn. Not that I'm criticising of course - we are all entitled to evolve.
A result of bug-fixes and upgrades from CHB V.1.0 to CHB V 3.0?
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.
The effective tax on immigrants would concentrate minds on training domestically.
If you have to pay the immigrant £60k against £50k for a local…
Why residency? Make it a matter of birth citizenship.
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
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
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
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.
Lizzy Buchan @LizzyBuchan · 3h Nick Robinson: “Chancellor, it’s no use saying ‘well of course we’ve listened’ - for 2 weeks you’ve done the opposite of listening.”
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?
Recall Ashworth served under Corbyn.
Read the Forde Report
Watch The Labour Files
Labour has never been more factional from the suspension of the only Jewish woman on the NEC to the stalking of Muslims if you cant see Factionalism in the current Labour Party.
Well as my mother would say pigs cant smell their own shit
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.
Perhaps 5 years is a bit long between elections, maybe 3 or 4 is better ?
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
“The polls are unlikely to move rapidly to Truss”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I realised that was silly when I posted it but then I was too late to delete rapidly
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.
The effective tax on immigrants would concentrate minds on training domestically.
If you have to pay the immigrant £60k against £50k for a local…
Why residency? Make it a matter of birth citizenship.
Residency and citizenship makes sense, since if you're not paying taxes (non-resident/non-dom) then you shouldn't be getting the benefits. Possibly the only thing to keep the pension age for then, so that pensioners can retire abroad if they want to, but working age people who go abroad would need to use that nations tax and benefit system.
Migrants shouldn't get the benefit but there should be a pathway to citizenship (and thus acquiring the UBI once a citizen) for migrants.
There's been a bit too much politics of late for me, hence my absence.
However what's the case for Lula being at 1.38?
He's ~5.2% ahead, at 48.4%.
Is there any doubt that if the runoff were tomorrow he would be the winner? I haven't seen anything which projects a net swing to Bolsonaro in the second round (much less the swing required).
Is 1.38 the price of possible changes between now and 30 October then? Do people really change their mind between rounds - unless their candidate has been eliminated? Lula and Bolsonaro are both known quantities.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 8m The Swedish Navy’s submarine rescue vessel (A214 'Belos') has arrived to the area of the Nord Stream leak. She carries several remote underwater vehicles, divers and a submarine rescue vessel.
Her arrival suggests NATO forces are about to get to the bottom of Nord Stream leak.
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
That's not a problem, the multi millionaires will be taxpayers.
Its a simplification of taxes and benefits to remove cliff edges, not an alternative to permanent employment.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 8m The Swedish Navy’s submarine rescue vessel (A214 'Belos') has arrived to the area of the Nord Stream leak. She carries several remote underwater vehicles, divers and a submarine rescue vessel.
Her arrival suggests NATO forces are about to get to the bottom of Nord Stream leak.
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
In the meantime though the polling is going to get so bleak panicked responses loom into view
Getting hard to keep up. I doubt the Russians have any idea where their defensive lines are any longer. Must be chaos in their command posts. (Those that haven't been visited by HIMARs anyway.)
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 8m The Swedish Navy’s submarine rescue vessel (A214 'Belos') has arrived to the area of the Nord Stream leak. She carries several remote underwater vehicles, divers and a submarine rescue vessel.
Her arrival suggests NATO forces are about to get to the bottom of Nord Stream leak.
It would be hilarious if they found that the leak happened because of some dodgy welding or someting equally innocuous. Not that anyone would believe them 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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
The problem with UBI is that the maths doesn't work. And it says a lot about anyone that's a proponent of it that they haven't even bothered to do a back of envelope calculation.
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
No, it isn't "a payment to multi millionaires".
If the marginal rate is 50% for every bit of income, then your multi millionaires will pay more tax, particularly as it will be harder to avoid.
If UBI offends you, you could instead replot it as a continuously increasing asymptotic tax rate above the net zero tax income which converges to a 50% tax rate.
You then plot tax credits backwards from the net zero income on an increasing taper.
You could then have UBI without having to call it such.
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.
Essentially extending the state pension to the whole adult population. Cost around £400 billion per year I think ? So the taxes above would need to rise.
The UBI would replace tax free allowances, so for working people it would be neutral. Your employer would simply not pay you the tax free part of your pay
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 8m The Swedish Navy’s submarine rescue vessel (A214 'Belos') has arrived to the area of the Nord Stream leak. She carries several remote underwater vehicles, divers and a submarine rescue vessel.
Her arrival suggests NATO forces are about to get to the bottom of Nord Stream leak.
It would be hilarious if they found that the leak happened because of some dodgy welding or someting equally innocuous. Not that anyone would believe them of course.
There's been a bit too much politics of late for me, hence my absence.
However what's the case for Lula being at 1.38?
He's ~5.2% ahead, at 48.4%.
Is there any doubt that if the runoff were tomorrow he would be the winner? I haven't seen anything which projects a net swing to Bolsonaro in the second round (much less the swing required).
Is 1.38 the price of possible changes between now and 30 October then? Do people really change their mind between rounds - unless their candidate has been eliminated? Lula and Bolsonaro are both known quantities.
It’s likely due to some uncertainty as to who Tebet and Gomes who collectively had 7% in the first round will come out and support . One would think they’d be much more likely to go for Lula . Another is what Bolsonaro could offer as sweeteners to voters in the next month .
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 8m The Swedish Navy’s submarine rescue vessel (A214 'Belos') has arrived to the area of the Nord Stream leak. She carries several remote underwater vehicles, divers and a submarine rescue vessel.
Her arrival suggests NATO forces are about to get to the bottom of Nord Stream leak.
It would be hilarious if they found that the leak happened because of some dodgy welding or someting equally innocuous. Not that anyone would believe them of course.
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
Fortunately the country do not
Compared to Truss the polling suggests they do now, Boris' final Opinium poll had the Tories on 34%, Truss' latest Opinium poll has the Tories on just 27%
Getting hard to keep up. I doubt the Russians have any idea where their defensive lines are any longer. Must be chaos in their command posts. (Those that haven't been visited by HIMARs anyway.)
Sounds like they are all so totally drunk to try and cope that they don't know where the door is never mind a battle map.
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
Labour was your party. You decided that it no longer stood for what you wanted as you are, to put it politely, a fringe (or perhaps niche) voter. There is nothing wrong with that - I did the same with the Tories about 30 years before you and have never returned to them.
But to try and claim that it is CHB who is the Tory enabler when his party now looks more likely to topple the Tory Government than they have in over a decade seems wrong headed to me.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
So much hate
It’s possible - and much healthier - to disagree with someone without calling them “scum”.
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
Fortunately the country do not
Compared to Truss the polling suggests they do now, Boris' final Opinium poll had the Tories on 34%, Truss' latest Opinium poll has the Tories on just 27%
Yet another curiosity of the 45pm U-turn – it was done *after* Liz Truss did a round of ITV regional interviews, but *before* the embargo on the interviews, meaning we now get to watch a series of TV clips of the PM defending a policy she has abandoned.
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.
The effective tax on immigrants would concentrate minds on training domestically.
If you have to pay the immigrant £60k against £50k for a local…
Why residency? Make it a matter of birth citizenship.
If you don't have a residency criterion then the smart thing to do is combine your UBI from Britain with the tax-free allowance on your earnings in another country.
Not an issue when every country has a UBI instead of tax-free allowances, but would be before then.
There's been a bit too much politics of late for me, hence my absence.
However what's the case for Lula being at 1.38?
He's ~5.2% ahead, at 48.4%.
Is there any doubt that if the runoff were tomorrow he would be the winner? I haven't seen anything which projects a net swing to Bolsonaro in the second round (much less the swing required).
Is 1.38 the price of possible changes between now and 30 October then? Do people really change their mind between rounds - unless their candidate has been eliminated? Lula and Bolsonaro are both known quantities.
Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.” https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).
As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
The “easy” way to cut spending is to say “carry on doing what you have been but with less money”. That has limits but it’s what most politicians do.
In fact they need to say “what should the state be doing” and then “what resources does it need to do it well”.
That’s the only way to cut spending sustainably.
For example - working tax credits are subsidies to employers who pay low wages. I don’t think the government should be doing that. If there is genuinely a group of people whose productivity can’t support a job at the minimum wage then you need to invest in training them.
Similarly housing benefits are a classic case of the government not using its pricing power effectively
A peculiar drama. Rather Woke (everyone who got really sick from Covid was black, apparently), nicely written, superbly cast. And what a performance from Branagh
It’s kind towards Boris. And my big takeaway is that Yeah, I’d have Boris back tomorrow, if possible
He was flawed but he had the charisma. And he faced impossible difficulties and did OK
A peculiar drama. Rather Woke (everyone who got really sick from Covid was black, apparently), nicely written, superbly cast. And what a performance from Branagh
It’s kind towards Boris. And my big takeaway is that Yeah, I’d have Boris back tomorrow, if possible
He was flawed but he had the charisma. And he faded impossibly difficulties and did OK
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
Fortunately the country do not
Compared to Truss the polling suggests they do now, Boris' final Opinium poll had the Tories on 34%, Truss' latest Opinium poll has the Tories on just 27%
You make my point for me
That Boris was more popular than Truss now is, yes
A peculiar drama. Rather Woke (everyone who got really sick from Covid was black, apparently), nicely written, superbly cast. And what a performance from Branagh
It’s kind towards Boris. And my big takeaway is that Yeah, I’d have Boris back tomorrow, if possible
He was flawed but he had the charisma. And he faded impossibly difficulties and did OK
BRING BACK BORIS
But he ate a Birthday Cake!!!
Erm..he broke the same rules that he made, that others were fined thousands of pounds for up and down the country, and made his own brother a lord ; also lied to the Queen and parliament, embraced Donald Trump as his best buddy, and tried to get the entire system of parliamentary rules changed purely to get his chum Owen Paterson off the hook.
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
Fortunately the country do not
Compared to Truss the polling suggests they do now, Boris' final Opinium poll had the Tories on 34%, Truss' latest Opinium poll has the Tories on just 27%
As far as I can see Johnson is likely to be thrown out of parliament by the select committee.
So whatever sort of ratings he's got, or had, in the country won't matter very much!
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 list of what can be abolished is huge.
They arent convinced by it because the numbers dont add up.
Number of adults in uk approx 56 million
10k a head = 560 billion
current total welfare spending which is all you can abolish with it about 340 billion....you seem to have 220 billion extra in tax to find somewhere and thats before the fact that you cant abolish all welfare as many already get more than 10k in benefits and barely survive
A peculiar drama. Rather Woke (everyone who got really sick from Covid was black, apparently), nicely written, superbly cast. And what a performance from Branagh
It’s kind towards Boris. And my big takeaway is that Yeah, I’d have Boris back tomorrow, if possible
He was flawed but he had the charisma. And he faced impossible difficulties and did OK
BRING BACK BORIS
Indeed, Bolsonaro and Trump both outperformed the final polls as charismatic personalities able to rally the populist right. Boris may well have done the same, Truss won't.
Boris would still likely lose, as Trump did and Bolsonaro likely would too in the run off but it would be closer than Truss would have got. Berlusconi back as part of the rightwing governing coalition in Italy as well on a charismatic populist right ticket with Meloni
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 8m The Swedish Navy’s submarine rescue vessel (A214 'Belos') has arrived to the area of the Nord Stream leak. She carries several remote underwater vehicles, divers and a submarine rescue vessel.
Her arrival suggests NATO forces are about to get to the bottom of Nord Stream leak.
It would be hilarious if they found that the leak happened because of some dodgy welding or someting equally innocuous. Not that anyone would believe them of course.
[David Attenborough voice] This expedition led to the discovery of the saltwater pipeworm, a hitherto unknown species that considers methane a tantalising delicacy and will burrow through concrete and steel to access it. Once a small hole is made, escaping methane attracts millions of these creatures from miles around. [/David Attenborough voice]
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
The problem with UBI is that the maths doesn't work. And it says a lot about anyone that's a proponent of it that they haven't even bothered to do a back of envelope calculation.
How does the maths not work? Explain. You are simply rearranging the tax, benefit, and allowances system.
PS I have a maths degree and can see no maths inconsistencies.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
Yes. Find another field, or buy it yourself if you don't want it developing.
Governments need to consider externalities as well. There are clearly positive externalities (eg impact of sporting facilities on obesity strategy) and so there needs to be a proper assessment of whether a new school facility is better for society as a whole,
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 list of what can be abolished is huge.
They arent convinced by it because the numbers dont add up.
Number of adults in uk approx 56 million
10k a head = 560 billion
current total welfare spending which is all you can abolish with it about 340 billion....you seem to have 220 billion extra in tax to find somewhere and thats before the fact that you cant abolish all welfare as many already get more than 10k in benefits and barely survive
I'm not a financial expert but I don't think everyone gets "given" £10K. For many people who earn more than that they just pay less tax. You would have a massive increase in efficiency through the simplicity of the system. I would be really interested to see some financial modelling on it.
Let's hope the 'end of history' guy gets it right this time!!
Unnerving retort from an FT editor directly below
“Be careful what you wish for?”
My hunch has been: we will find out if Putin is willing to use nukes in the next 6 months. Make that “the next 6 weeks”?
Putin could be gone by Xmas either way. Assassinated or incinerated
I've been having similar thoughts for the past few weeks (careful what you wish for) and have articulated them here. They've not gone down well. But events have justified my fears. The Ukranian advances could be a phyrric victory given the apparent disintegration of the Russian state. The liberal elements are fleeing, the brainwashed masses are going in to a holy Jihad, it isn't going well, and they have vast amounts of nuclear bombs. Its the most terrifying existential crisis for western civilisation in modern history, and people are going on about 45 p tax rate cuts, which are trivial in the grand scheme of things (if a pleasant distraction).
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
Yes
Not really - the choice is to lose or to lose.
If he goes nuclear - the only difference will be he delays things a few days / weeks and still loses.....
No, Nuclear is by definition imponderable. Never been done. Probably means catastrophe for the world, certainly means intense chaos and pain, which is why it might appeal to a dictator facing the end
I’ve been thinking about Putin’s nuclear option this weekend. My reckoning is the Russian military would likely revolt if Putin ordered a nuclear strike. So it wouldn’t happen. I just wish I could be certain
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
I don't think going nuclear prevents defeat. It will end up being a different way of losing.
I think the two options are essentially:
1. Putin accepts defeat in Ukraine early enough that he is able to retain control in Russia, and avoids the Gaddafi scenario. 2. Putin does not accept defeat in Ukraine, and consequently destroys his personal dictatorship and loses his life.
I suspect his core program has been hacked and the optional Conscience 2.0 module has been installed, possibly with the supporting "Express Regret" add-on.
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
Yes
Not really - the choice is to lose or to lose.
If he goes nuclear - the only difference will be he delays things a few days / weeks and still loses.....
If he goes nuclear he likely keeps the 4 regions he has now. Ukraine forces will be forced to fall back from further advance if hit by a tactical nuclear weapon, leading to stalemate
A peculiar drama. Rather Woke (everyone who got really sick from Covid was black, apparently), nicely written, superbly cast. And what a performance from Branagh
It’s kind towards Boris. And my big takeaway is that Yeah, I’d have Boris back tomorrow, if possible
He was flawed but he had the charisma. And he faded impossibly difficulties and did OK
BRING BACK BORIS
But he ate a Birthday Cake!!!
Erm..he broke the same rules that he made, that others were fined thousands of pounds for up and down the country, and made his own brother a lord ; also lied to the Queen and parliament, embraced Donald Trump as his best buddy, and tried to get the entire system of parliamentary rules changed purely to get his chum Owen Paterson off the hook.
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
That is not correct. You haven't understood how it works. You set the tax rate such that it is fiscally neutral. It is also harder to avoid tax so if anything multi millionaires may well pay more in tax.
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
Fortunately the country do not
Compared to Truss the polling suggests they do now, Boris' final Opinium poll had the Tories on 34%, Truss' latest Opinium poll has the Tories on just 27%
You make my point for me
That Boris was more popular than Truss now is, yes
No- that you cannot accept Johnson is utterly toxic
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.
Essentially extending the state pension to the whole adult population. Cost around £400 billion per year I think ? So the taxes above would need to rise.
The UBI would replace tax free allowances, so for working people it would be neutral. Your employer would simply not pay you the tax free part of your pay
but it doesnt....tax free allowance saves you paying circa 2k of tax is all. UBI of 10k != 10k tax free allowance
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 list of what can be abolished is huge.
They arent convinced by it because the numbers dont add up.
Number of adults in uk approx 56 million
10k a head = 560 billion
current total welfare spending which is all you can abolish with it about 340 billion....you seem to have 220 billion extra in tax to find somewhere and thats before the fact that you cant abolish all welfare as many already get more than 10k in benefits and barely survive
But we've had an educated discussion you've ignored on where the extra tax would come from. Tax free allowances would be abolished, people currently earning non-NI incomes could see their marginal tax rate going up etc
We aren't just talking about a giveaway, it is a comprehensive streamlining of our tax and benefit system altogether.
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
Fortunately the country do not
Compared to Truss the polling suggests they do now, Boris' final Opinium poll had the Tories on 34%, Truss' latest Opinium poll has the Tories on just 27%
You make my point for me
That Boris was more popular than Truss now is, yes
No- that you cannot accept Johnson is utterly toxic
He wasn't as toxic as Truss now is, we are now in 1997 polling territory for Starmer ie Blair like landslide, under Boris he was just heading for most seats in a hung parliament like Cameron in 2010
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
I would imagine losing Crimea would be the absolute end for him and he wouldn’t be able to survive it so if it got to the point where the Russians were pushed out of Kherson Oblast and building up to take Crimea I could see him being desperate enough to use tactical nukes in Kherson.
It would create a zone where the Ukrainian military could not operate or build up due to radioactivity and so theoretically protect Crimea.
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
Yes
Not really - the choice is to lose or to lose.
If he goes nuclear - the only difference will be he delays things a few days / weeks and still loses.....
No, Nuclear is by definition imponderable. Never been done. Probably means catastrophe for the world, certainly means intense chaos and pain, which is why it might appeal to a dictator facing the end
I’ve been thinking about Putin’s nuclear option this weekend. My reckoning is the Russian military would likely revolt if Putin ordered a nuclear strike. So it wouldn’t happen. I just wish I could be certain
If he were to nuke Ukrainian positions now he would be, from a Russian perspective, nuking sovereign Russian territory. How can he be seen to "liberate" these territories by dropping nukes there? Ironically it would have been easier for him to justify doing it before annexing them.
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.
Essentially extending the state pension to the whole adult population. Cost around £400 billion per year I think ? So the taxes above would need to rise.
The UBI would replace tax free allowances, so for working people it would be neutral. Your employer would simply not pay you the tax free part of your pay
but it doesnt....tax free allowance saves you paying circa 2k of tax is all. UBI of 10k != 10k tax free allowance
£12,500 tax free allowance x 40% tax rate = £5,000 not £2,000
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
That is not correct. You haven't understood how it works. You set the tax rate such that it is fiscally neutral. It is also harder to avoid tax so if anything multi millionaires may well pay more in tax.
As Pagan states the amount given in UBI would be far more than that saved in the tax free allowance
The U turn has ended the immediate danger to Truss and Kwarteng* so I suspect they are now safe until the new year. The question then becomes whether Truss’ leadership will continue to be hopeless enough that the Tories need to act, or just about competent enough (though still poor) that it doesn’t give them any chance to rid themselves of her.
*with one caveat: if market volatility continues because the U turn isn’t big enough (45p is a small part of the whole package), the danger could persist for them both.
Careful now. You'll get put on a charge for posting stuff like that.
Isn't attacking some order of magnitude higher casualties? The NATO equipment isn't going to completely reverse that. Probably expect really grim numbers for Ukraine as it progresses.
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 list of what can be abolished is huge.
They arent convinced by it because the numbers dont add up.
Number of adults in uk approx 56 million
10k a head = 560 billion
current total welfare spending which is all you can abolish with it about 340 billion....you seem to have 220 billion extra in tax to find somewhere and thats before the fact that you cant abolish all welfare as many already get more than 10k in benefits and barely survive
At a marginal tax rate of 50%, abolishing allowances is over 6k per current worker (about 34m pay income tax). So that's at least 204 billion back already.
Those paying currently paying 20% + NI will now have a marginal rate of 50%, which will probably fill the rest of the hole.
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
Yes
Not really - the choice is to lose or to lose.
If he goes nuclear - the only difference will be he delays things a few days / weeks and still loses.....
No, Nuclear is by definition imponderable. Never been done. Probably means catastrophe for the world, certainly means intense chaos and pain, which is why it might appeal to a dictator facing the end
I’ve been thinking about Putin’s nuclear option this weekend. My reckoning is the Russian military would likely revolt if Putin ordered a nuclear strike. So it wouldn’t happen. I just wish I could be certain
That incinerated Russian kid is someone’s son, brother, lover, husband. One has to wonder what images like this are doing to Russian morale. Putin is surely losing the Home Front
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 list of what can be abolished is huge.
They arent convinced by it because the numbers dont add up.
Number of adults in uk approx 56 million
10k a head = 560 billion
current total welfare spending which is all you can abolish with it about 340 billion....you seem to have 220 billion extra in tax to find somewhere and thats before the fact that you cant abolish all welfare as many already get more than 10k in benefits and barely survive
But we've had an educated discussion you've ignored on where the extra tax would come from. Tax free allowances would be abolished, people currently earning non-NI incomes could see their marginal tax rate going up etc
We aren't just talking about a giveaway, it is a comprehensive streamlining of our tax and benefit system altogether.
The point is that it would require the extra tax to be 220 billion on top of what they already take and the other point is that 10k isnt enough for people to live on so you wouldnt in fact wipe out benefits either unless you want people living on ubi alone living on the street
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.
Essentially extending the state pension to the whole adult population. Cost around £400 billion per year I think ? So the taxes above would need to rise.
The UBI would replace tax free allowances, so for working people it would be neutral. Your employer would simply not pay you the tax free part of your pay
but it doesnt....tax free allowance saves you paying circa 2k of tax is all. UBI of 10k != 10k tax free allowance
Yes but your marginal rate of tax would also be higher. If for example it were a flat 40% rate on 50k income you would pay 20k. Under the current system you pay 0% and then 20%, so you are paying back the universal income and tax.
You set the tax rate so the impact is neutral (hence the claims it doesn't add up is nonsense).
You then get all the benefit of the universal income as highlighted earlier.
I'm really struggling with people thinking there is a maths problem.
No, just even despite today's announcement it is clear Truss and Kwarteng are more focused on regaining votes in the City of London and home counties than redwall. Hence the end to the bankers bonus cap stays as does the corporation tax cut and spending cuts still likely
The real reason behind your posts is your utter attachment to the toxic Johnson and you want him back
Fortunately the country do not
Compared to Truss the polling suggests they do now, Boris' final Opinium poll had the Tories on 34%, Truss' latest Opinium poll has the Tories on just 27%
You make my point for me
That Boris was more popular than Truss now is, yes
No- that you cannot accept Johnson is utterly toxic
Johnson was utterly toxic, and his ratings were only going one way from where they were last summer.
However, the special genius of the Conservative party has been to replace a toxic PM with someone who shows every sign of being even more toxic, just for different reasons.
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.
Essentially extending the state pension to the whole adult population. Cost around £400 billion per year I think ? So the taxes above would need to rise.
The UBI would replace tax free allowances, so for working people it would be neutral. Your employer would simply not pay you the tax free part of your pay
but it doesnt....tax free allowance saves you paying circa 2k of tax is all. UBI of 10k != 10k tax free allowance
£12,500 tax free allowance x 40% tax rate = £5,000 not £2,000
You dont currently pay 40% when you exceed your tax free allowance you pay 20% so the tax saving is 2K as it stands.
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
I think the choice for Putin is either lose this war or go nuclear and lose this war having gone nuclear. What happens to him afterwards would no doubt be different under those two scenarios.
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
I would imagine losing Crimea would be the absolute end for him and he wouldn’t be able to survive it so if it got to the point where the Russians were pushed out of Kherson Oblast and building up to take Crimea I could see him being desperate enough to use tactical nukes in Kherson.
It would create a zone where the Ukrainian military could not operate or build up due to radioactivity and so theoretically protect Crimea.
The literal fallout would be potentially self-defeating? Much "better" a high-altitude detonation over the Black Sea or high over Ukraine itself. Puts everyone in a very awkward position.
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
Yes
Not really - the choice is to lose or to lose.
If he goes nuclear - the only difference will be he delays things a few days / weeks and still loses.....
No, Nuclear is by definition imponderable. Never been done. Probably means catastrophe for the world, certainly means intense chaos and pain, which is why it might appeal to a dictator facing the end
I’ve been thinking about Putin’s nuclear option this weekend. My reckoning is the Russian military would likely revolt if Putin ordered a nuclear strike. So it wouldn’t happen. I just wish I could be certain
If he were to nuke Ukrainian positions now he would be, from a Russian perspective, nuking sovereign Russian territory. How can he be seen to "liberate" these territories by dropping nukes there? Ironically it would have been easier for him to justify doing it before annexing them.
He could nuke somewhere else. Completely random. Drop 15 kilo tons on Riga, Berlin or Lviv
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 list of what can be abolished is huge.
They arent convinced by it because the numbers dont add up.
Number of adults in uk approx 56 million
10k a head = 560 billion
current total welfare spending which is all you can abolish with it about 340 billion....you seem to have 220 billion extra in tax to find somewhere and thats before the fact that you cant abolish all welfare as many already get more than 10k in benefits and barely survive
But we've had an educated discussion you've ignored on where the extra tax would come from. Tax free allowances would be abolished, people currently earning non-NI incomes could see their marginal tax rate going up etc
We aren't just talking about a giveaway, it is a comprehensive streamlining of our tax and benefit system altogether.
The point is that it would require the extra tax to be 220 billion on top of what they already take and the other point is that 10k isnt enough for people to live on so you wouldnt in fact wipe out benefits either unless you want people living on ubi alone living on the street
Indeed, you will need to add housing benefit at least on top of that £10k UBI for those who needed it
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
Yes
Not really - the choice is to lose or to lose.
If he goes nuclear - the only difference will be he delays things a few days / weeks and still loses.....
If he goes nuclear he likely keeps the 4 regions he has now. Ukraine forces will be forced to fall back from further advance if hit by a tactical nuclear weapon, leading to stalemate
The U turn has ended the immediate danger to Truss and Kwarteng* so I suspect they are now safe until the new year. The question then becomes whether Truss’ leadership will continue to be hopeless enough that the Tories need to act, or just about competent enough (though still poor) that it doesn’t give them any chance to rid themselves of her.
*with one caveat: if market volatility continues because the U turn isn’t big enough (45p is a small part of the whole package), the danger could persist for them both.
I suspect they are safe until they start to reveal where their spending cuts are going to hit.
That incinerated Russian kid is someone’s son, brother, lover, husband. One has to wonder what images like this are doing to Russian morale. Putin is surely losing the Home Front
Most of them haven't seen it, unfortunately.
By now we've all seen the hunt for scapegoats by Russian military bloggers playing out following the defeat to Ukraine in Lyman
But what did state TV's mammoth Sunday night news shows have to say about it?
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.
The problem with UBI is it is a payment even to multi millionaires paid for by taxpayers. Unless automation leads to an end to most permanent employment it is not realistic
That is not correct. You haven't understood how it works. You set the tax rate such that it is fiscally neutral. It is also harder to avoid tax so if anything multi millionaires may well pay more in tax.
You cant make it fiscally neutral as it would require the state to bring in over 200 billion more in tax. That extra money has to come from somewhere to fill the hole.
220 billion / 56 million people equates to an average of 4k tax a year on average per head. Don't even hand wave about we would just be able to tax the rich more to get the extra money the sum is too big
So, is the choice for Putin essentially this: lose or go nuclear?
I would imagine losing Crimea would be the absolute end for him and he wouldn’t be able to survive it so if it got to the point where the Russians were pushed out of Kherson Oblast and building up to take Crimea I could see him being desperate enough to use tactical nukes in Kherson.
It would create a zone where the Ukrainian military could not operate or build up due to radioactivity and so theoretically protect Crimea.
The literal fallout would be potentially self-defeating? Much "better" a high-altitude detonation over the Black Sea or high over Ukraine itself. Puts everyone in a very awkward position.
What worries me is not that it will escalate to global thermonuclear war even if Putin does do something stupid. I don't think it will.
What worries me is the likely reaction worldwide. Multiply the pandemic panic by 100.
Comments
So the taxes above would need to rise.
A result of bug-fixes and upgrades from CHB V.1.0 to CHB V 3.0?
If you have to pay the immigrant £60k against £50k for a local…
Why residency? Make it a matter of birth citizenship.
permanent employment it is not realistic
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@LizzyBuchan
·
3h
Nick Robinson: “Chancellor, it’s no use saying ‘well of course we’ve listened’ - for 2 weeks you’ve done the opposite of listening.”
Kwarteng: “Well, it was about 9 days”
@BBCr4today
Watch The Labour Files
Labour has never been more factional from the suspension of the only Jewish woman on the NEC to the stalking of Muslims if you cant see Factionalism in the current Labour Party.
Well as my mother would say pigs cant smell their own shit
Migrants shouldn't get the benefit but there should be a pathway to citizenship (and thus acquiring the UBI once a citizen) for migrants.
However what's the case for Lula being at 1.38?
He's ~5.2% ahead, at 48.4%.
Is there any doubt that if the runoff were tomorrow he would be the winner? I haven't seen anything which projects a net swing to Bolsonaro in the second round (much less the swing required).
Is 1.38 the price of possible changes between now and 30 October then? Do people really change their mind between rounds - unless their candidate has been eliminated? Lula and Bolsonaro are both known quantities.
Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
·
8m
The Swedish Navy’s submarine rescue vessel (A214 'Belos') has arrived to the area of the Nord Stream leak. She carries several remote underwater vehicles, divers and a submarine rescue vessel.
Her arrival suggests NATO forces are about to get to the bottom of Nord Stream leak.
Fortunately the country do not
Its a simplification of taxes and benefits to remove cliff edges, not an alternative to permanent employment.
If the marginal rate is 50% for every bit of income, then your multi millionaires will pay more tax, particularly as it will be harder to avoid.
If UBI offends you, you could instead replot it as a continuously increasing asymptotic tax rate above the net zero tax income which converges to a 50% tax rate.
You then plot tax credits backwards from the net zero income on an increasing taper.
You could then have UBI without having to call it such.
But to try and claim that it is CHB who is the Tory enabler when his party now looks more likely to topple the Tory Government than they have in over a decade seems wrong headed to me.
It’s possible - and much healthier - to disagree with someone without calling them “scum”.
https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1576662322428485633
Yet another curiosity of the 45pm U-turn – it was done *after* Liz Truss did a round of ITV regional interviews, but *before* the embargo on the interviews, meaning we now get to watch a series of TV clips of the PM defending a policy she has abandoned.
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1576888448450969600
"NO" - what the PM trussliz
told me just hours ahead of u-turn on the 45p tax rate when I asked her if she would change the plan itvanglia
https://twitter.com/ITVEmmaH/status/1576882726120337411?s=20&t=s-BHjdi7quFLxNzOU_2QpA
Not an issue when every country has a UBI instead of tax-free allowances, but would be before then.
@FukuyamaFrancis
A much bigger Russian collapse will unfold in the coming days.
https://twitter.com/FukuyamaFrancis/status/1576814074750726144
===
Let's hope the 'end of history' guy gets it right this time!!
Actually that looks good, imma gonna do it too
In fact they need to say “what should the state be doing” and then “what resources does it need to do it well”.
That’s the only way to cut spending sustainably.
For example - working tax credits are subsidies to employers who pay low wages. I don’t think the government should be doing that. If there is genuinely a group of people whose productivity can’t support a job at the minimum wage then you need to invest in training them.
Similarly housing benefits are a classic case of the government not using its pricing power effectively
A peculiar drama. Rather Woke (everyone who got really sick from Covid was black, apparently), nicely written, superbly cast. And what a performance from Branagh
It’s kind towards Boris. And my big takeaway is that Yeah, I’d have Boris back tomorrow, if possible
He was flawed but he had the charisma. And he faced impossible difficulties and did OK
BRING BACK BORIS
So whatever sort of ratings he's got, or had, in the country won't matter very much!
“Be careful what you wish for?”
My hunch has been: we will find out if Putin is willing to use nukes in the next 6 months. Make that “the next 6 weeks”?
Putin could be gone by Xmas either way. Assassinated or incinerated
Number of adults in uk approx 56 million
10k a head = 560 billion
current total welfare spending which is all you can abolish with it about 340 billion....you seem to have 220 billion extra in tax to find somewhere and thats before the fact that you cant abolish all welfare as many already get more than 10k in benefits and barely survive
Boris would still likely lose, as Trump did and Bolsonaro likely would too in the run off but it would be closer than Truss would have got. Berlusconi back as part of the rightwing governing coalition in Italy as well on a charismatic populist right ticket with Meloni
PS I have a maths degree and can see no maths inconsistencies.
If he goes nuclear - the only difference will be he delays things a few days / weeks and still loses.....
If you add on Undecideds to Bolsonaro then he suddenly moves into line with reality.
So that's key for head to head polling over the next few weeks.
Or trigger a thermonuclear armageddon.
No, Nuclear is by definition imponderable. Never been done. Probably means catastrophe for the world, certainly means intense chaos and pain, which is why it might appeal to a dictator facing the end
I’ve been thinking about Putin’s nuclear option this weekend. My reckoning is the Russian military would likely revolt if Putin ordered a nuclear strike. So it wouldn’t happen. I just wish I could be certain
I think the two options are essentially:
1. Putin accepts defeat in Ukraine early enough that he is able to retain control in Russia, and avoids the Gaddafi scenario.
2. Putin does not accept defeat in Ukraine, and consequently destroys his personal dictatorship and loses his life.
Option 1 is his offramp.
We aren't just talking about a giveaway, it is a comprehensive streamlining of our tax and benefit system altogether.
It would create a zone where the Ukrainian military could not operate or build up due to radioactivity and so theoretically protect Crimea.
*with one caveat: if market volatility continues because the U turn isn’t big enough (45p is a small part of the whole package), the danger could persist for them both.
Those paying currently paying 20% + NI will now have a marginal rate of 50%, which will probably fill the rest of the hole.
It adds up fine if you set appropriate rates.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
WARNING: NSFW
https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/1576647915266637824?s=46&t=V2sjkNaKxfgFNORJ3NIsXg
That incinerated Russian kid is someone’s son, brother, lover, husband. One has to wonder what images like this are doing to Russian morale. Putin is surely losing the Home Front
You set the tax rate so the impact is neutral (hence the claims it doesn't add up is nonsense).
You then get all the benefit of the universal income as highlighted earlier.
I'm really struggling with people thinking there is a maths problem.
However, the special genius of the Conservative party has been to replace a toxic PM with someone who shows every sign of being even more toxic, just for different reasons.
At which point it's going to be game on again...
By now we've all seen the hunt for scapegoats by Russian military bloggers playing out following the defeat to Ukraine in Lyman
But what did state TV's mammoth Sunday night news shows have to say about it?
A brief 🧵
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1576802301075156992
I'd have to actually contribute to the economy, God forbid.
220 billion / 56 million people equates to an average of 4k tax a year on average per head. Don't even hand wave about we would just be able to tax the rich more to get the extra money the sum is too big
💥Michael Gove tells me #TimesRadio that he won't support breaking the pledge to increase benefits in line with inflation:
"I'd need a lot of persuading to move away from that. But I wouldn't want to prejudge an argument that was put in front of me before the argument was made.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1576891311860617217
What worries me is the likely reaction worldwide. Multiply the pandemic panic by 100.
If banks are teetering now, what happens then?