Howdy, Stranger!

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

A Tribute Act – politicalbetting.com

18910111214»

Comments

  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    The "extra tax" is cleaning up the tax system as it is, not necessarily net extra tax. Instead of having a tax-free allowance and wildly varying tax rates, you have a simply UBI and consistent tax rate.

    Paying 40% tax on your earnings if you're currently on 0% or 20% may be "extra tax" but that is simply cleaning up and cancelling out the change with the UBI change.

    For those who have arranged their affairs to evade NI and not pay the same tax rates as others, it absolutely might end up extra tax, but then that is part of having everyone pay the same rate at the end of the day.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    Ashfield MP Lee Anderson says the climbdown on abolishing the 45p tax rate is not a u-turn, "it's a change of direction". https://twitter.com/Alison1mackITV/status/1576886149645094912
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    💥 OUCH 💥

    - “I was listening to a man from Yorkshire recently who accused you of peddling fairy tale economics.”

    - “I understand why people are concerned…”

    - “That man from Yorkshire was Rishi Sunak. He was right, wasn't he?” ~AA

    https://twitter.com/harry_horton/status/1576901067761410049/video/1
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited October 2022

    Leon said:

    I’ve been watching THIS ENGLAND

    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.
    But your mortgage rate remained steady eh?
    Well maybe, but he seemed to be a wrecker of institutions, norms and legitimacy, and truss seems to be a wrecker of the economy, and perhaps soon, too, public services and the safety net.

    They're like two choices of effluent - difficult to choose the better.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    It helps to imagine Putin as Hitler. Because that is almost what he is, now

    A crazed nationalist tyrant in a bunker, believing he is in a Holy War, and facing Gotterdammerung

    Would Hitler have used nukes at the end, given the choice? Yes, absolutely

    Would the German army have obeyed him? Hmm
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,587
    Solovyov is looking pretty depressed. Doesn't stop him saying that Russia is fighting "Satanism of the purest kind".

    Quite a change of tone from Vladimir Solovyov last night

    "I'd really like us to attack Kyiv and take it tomorrow, but I'm aware that the partial mobilisation will take time... For a certain period of time, things won't be easy for us. We shouldn't be expecting good news"

    https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1576834774320050178
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101
    this is exactly the kind of statement a newly promoted club that's spent big in the transfer market would put out, about 24 hours before sacking their manager https://twitter.com/PolicyRelevant/status/1576901994437963777/photo/1
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    edited October 2022
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    David Petraeus has been interesting on this

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
    If the US sunk Putin's fleet and destroyed Russian ground forces Putin could treat that as a declaration of war by NATO and send nukes against them too.

    In which case NATO would also respond with nukes. By that stage you should have bought a one way ticket to Switzerland or Austria, South America or South Africa as NATO states and Russia and NATO allies like Ireland, Australia and Japan and Putin allies like Belarus and North Korea would likely be obliterated
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,741
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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 VVP gets deposed for losing the SMO (with losing defined as being pushed back to the 2014 borders) then the very best outcome he can expect is life in Lefortovo. Especially if he's replaced by a hardline ultranationalist as is likely.

    Going nuclear wouldn't be to condition a military victory but to place possibly unbearable strain on the Coalition of Ukraine Super Friends. There are people who will happily have their families incinerated in a nuclear firestorm in order to prove a point about which group of oligarchs should have suzerainity over a muddy shit pit but the feeling may not be universal.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,146
    edited October 2022
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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.

    How do you get 20% with Income Tax and National Insurance?

    Under my proposal everyone pays a flat 40% (or whatever the figure needs to be to make it work, others have said 50%).

    Currently you may pay NI or the UC Taper Rate as well as Income Tax, so tax rates vary from 20% if its Income Tax only, to 70% if you're paying Income Tax, NI and Taper Rate. Everyone would pay a flat 40% rather than 20, 32 or 70 under my proposal.

    Either way, instantly we've made up much, much more of the money than you'd taken into account in your thoughts, since nobody has proposed 20% as the rate.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502

    Leon said:

    I’ve been watching THIS ENGLAND

    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.
    But your mortgage rate remained steady eh?
    Well maybe, but he seemed to be a wrecker of central institutions and norms, and truss seems to be a wrecker of the economy, and perhaps soon too, public services and the safety net.

    They're like two choices of effluent.
    I thought you once described yourself as a variety of "anarchist". Surely a "wrecker of central institutions and norms" would be music to your ears.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    More likely NATO does a massive non-nuclear retaliation with threat of nuclear to follow any further RU nuclear. As things stand entire RU army in occupied regions and entire Black Sea Fleet would be eliminated rapidly.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278
    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Head, wall.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
    £10k UBI replacing all benefits does not cover rent as well as living costs
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    David Petraeus has been interesting on this

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
    If the US sunk Putin's fleet and destroyed Russian ground forces Putin could treat that as a declaration of war by NATO and send nukes against them too.

    In which case NATO would also respond with nukes. By that stage you should have bought a one way ticket to Switzerland, South America or South Africa as NATO states and Russia and NATO allies like Ireland, Australia and Japan and Putin allies like Belarus and North Korea would likely be obliterated
    You might be right, but clearly the Americans have game theoried this already and this is the proposed response. They'd have to do something

    The other thing to bear in mind is we will probably get lots of notice? Surely tricky to get a battlefield nuke ready to go without US intelligence clocking it.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,587
    When anyone starts to feel sad for Russian troops you just need to read a tweet like this to stop. Same age as my daughter.

    13-year-old Mariya Yudina has been killed in a Russian missile strike on a residential area in Dnipro.

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1576903508661395457
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    You can't know that.
    A massive conventional response from the US is fairly likely (some would argue inevitable). And it wouldn't deter Ukraine, who are actually planning for it.

    As Leon suggests, Putin's best option is to declare the SMO over, hold a few show trials and defenestrations of those selected to take the blame, and cling on to power.
    It would probably work. The masses have been trained to accept more egregious bullshit even than that, and would probably breathe a sigh of relief that they wouldn't now be conscripted/die.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480

    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.”

    Kwarteng: “Well, it was about 9 days”

    @BBCr4today
    With respect I think thats a pretty weak attack line. Someone, somewhere attacks everything that is announced. Its fair to believe you have made the right call until it becomes clear you haven't.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480
    Eabhal said:

    I'm completely against UBI on the basis that my work would dry up analysing taxes and benefits.

    I'd have to actually contribute to the economy, God forbid.

    Someone's always going to lose out somewhere...
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited October 2022

    Leon said:

    I’ve been watching THIS ENGLAND

    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.
    But your mortgage rate remained steady eh?
    Well maybe, but he seemed to be a wrecker of central institutions and norms, and truss seems to be a wrecker of the economy, and perhaps soon too, public services and the safety net.

    They're like two choices of effluent.
    I thought you once described yourself as a variety of "anarchist". Surely a "wrecker of central institutions and norms" would be music to your ears.
    I described myself as more sympathetic to peaceful anarchism than communism or any other part of the radical left, but we also live in a reasonably well-tested and effective parliamentary system and constitutional monarchy.

    I would regard taking that apart from the inside to enrich your friends not as part of any sort of coherent political programme like anarchism, but purely corruption and short-term vandalism.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    David Petraeus has been interesting on this

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
    If the US sunk Putin's fleet and destroyed Russian ground forces Putin could treat that as a declaration of war by NATO and send nukes against them too.

    In which case NATO would also respond with nukes. By that stage you should have bought a one way ticket to Switzerland, South America or South Africa as NATO states and Russia and NATO allies like Ireland, Australia and Japan and Putin allies like Belarus and North Korea would likely be obliterated
    You might be right, but clearly the Americans have game theoried this already and this is the proposed response. They'd have to do something

    The other thing to bear in mind is we will probably get lots of notice? Surely tricky to get a battlefield nuke ready to go without US intelligence clocking it.
    They should tighten sanctions and just blockade and isolate Putin. Going to war with Russia risks going nuclear and involving us in nuclear war too. That should only be done if a NATO nation is attacked, Ukraine is not in NATO
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,282
    Dominic Cummings is turning into Peter Hitchens.

    Time to close rotten Tory Party. Close CCHQ, ditch brand.
    Rebuild with new principles, new people, new institutions, new tech.
    Startup 2023, take over after collapse 2024.
    Beating Starmer the easy part, startup toughest...


    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1576884382702477312
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    @HYUFD see my and other posts where the maths is shown. It isn't just personal allowances it is the tax rate you set. You set a rate that makes it neutral. Let's say that is 40%. If you earn 50K under the present system you pay tax at 0% and then 20%. Under the new system you will pay tax at 40% on all of it. You are therefore paying more in tax so you offset the universal income and still pay tax on top of that.

    You set the rate so it is net neutral.

    You then have the same tax income but all the benefits of the universal income (as described much earlier)

    It is really very simple.
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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.

    How do you get 20% with Income Tax and National Insurance?

    Under my proposal everyone pays a flat 40% (or whatever the figure needs to be to make it work, others have said 50%).

    Currently you may pay NI or the UC Taper Rate as well as Income Tax, so tax rates vary from 20% if its Income Tax only, to 70% if you're paying Income Tax, NI and Taper Rate. Everyone would pay a flat 40% rather than 20, 32 or 70 under my proposal.


    Either way, instantly we've made up
    much, much more of the money than you'd taken into account in your thoughts, since nobody has proposed 20% as the rate.
    So you’d make things less fair and more expensive?

    You are KK and I claim my £5 (in dollars please)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,589
    edited October 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
    Explain how those who already get more benefits than 10k and struggle to eat heat and live get by please if you are nuking housing benefit?

    Where I lived in slough your housing benefit for a single person would pay 650 then you got 334.91 + a reduction on your council tax. even the first two add up to more than 10k. UBI only people would take a cut of 1800 or so.
  • HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    David Petraeus has been interesting on this

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
    If the US sunk Putin's fleet and destroyed Russian ground forces Putin could treat that as a declaration of war by NATO and send nukes against them too.

    In which case NATO would also respond with nukes. By that stage you should have bought a one way ticket to Switzerland, South America or South Africa as NATO states and Russia and NATO allies like Ireland, Australia and Japan and Putin allies like Belarus and North Korea would likely be obliterated
    You might be right, but clearly the Americans have game theoried this already and this is the proposed response. They'd have to do something

    The other thing to bear in mind is we will probably get lots of notice? Surely tricky to get a battlefield nuke ready to go without US intelligence clocking it.
    They should tighten sanctions and just blockade and isolate Putin. Going to war with Russia risks going nuclear and involving us in nuclear war too. That should only be done if a NATO nation is attacked, Ukraine is not in NATO
    If Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons then that's an attack on NATO since the radiation would hit NATO nations. So Russia needs to be absolutely clear a nuclear attack on Ukraine is an attack on NATO and would get the full force of response that any other attack on NATO would get.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    AlistairM said:

    When anyone starts to feel sad for Russian troops you just need to read a tweet like this to stop. Same age as my daughter.

    13-year-old Mariya Yudina has been killed in a Russian missile strike on a residential area in Dnipro.

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1576903508661395457

    It is surely possible to feel terrible pity for both. Indeed necessary

    Ordinary Russians are human souls like us. And Russians are often the kindest, funniest people, who will happily share their final pickle
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,776
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    David Petraeus has been interesting on this

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
    If the US sunk Putin's fleet and destroyed Russian ground forces Putin could treat that as a declaration of war by NATO and send nukes against them too.

    In which case NATO would also respond with nukes. By that stage you should have bought a one way ticket to Switzerland, South America or South Africa as NATO states and Russia and NATO allies like Ireland, Australia and Japan and Putin allies like Belarus and North Korea would likely be obliterated
    You might be right, but clearly the Americans have game theoried this already and this is the proposed response. They'd have to do something

    The other thing to bear in mind is we will probably get lots of notice? Surely tricky to get a battlefield nuke ready to go without US intelligence clocking it.
    They should tighten sanctions and just blockade and isolate Putin. Going to war with Russia risks going nuclear and involving us in nuclear war too. That should only be done if a NATO nation is attacked, Ukraine is not in NATO
    If there is fallout dropping into Poland, we're in a rather tricky grey area.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480
    Leon said:

    It helps to imagine Putin as Hitler. Because that is almost what he is, now

    A crazed nationalist tyrant in a bunker, believing he is in a Holy War, and facing Gotterdammerung

    Would Hitler have used nukes at the end, given the choice? Yes, absolutely

    Would the German army have obeyed him? Hmm

    Some for sure, like the ones who shot fellow Germans for not fighting. Many had bought into the victory or death approach,

    For modern Russians? Not so sure.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    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
    David Petraeus has been interesting on this

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
    If the US sunk Putin's fleet and destroyed Russian ground forces Putin could treat that as a declaration of war by NATO and send nukes against them too.

    In which case NATO would also respond with nukes. By that stage you should have bought a one way ticket to Switzerland, South America or South Africa as NATO states and Russia and NATO allies like Ireland, Australia and Japan and Putin allies like Belarus and North Korea would likely be obliterated
    You might be right, but clearly the Americans have game theoried this already and this is the proposed response. They'd have to do something

    The other thing to bear in mind is we will probably get lots of notice? Surely tricky to get a battlefield nuke ready to go without US intelligence clocking it.
    They should tighten sanctions and just blockade and isolate Putin. Going to war with Russia risks going nuclear and involving us in nuclear war too. That should only be done if a NATO nation is attacked, Ukraine is not in NATO
    If Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons then that's an attack on NATO since the radiation would hit NATO nations. So Russia needs to be absolutely clear a nuclear attack on Ukraine is an attack on NATO and would get the full force of response that any other attack on NATO would get.
    Then that likely leads us to nuclear war despite no direct attack on a NATO state.

    In which case as I said book a one way ticket to Switzerland or South America or Africa or say your prayers
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,587
    This is quite an amusing rant from one of the Russian chat shows.

    Tonight on Russian state TV: the mood is grim, look at their faces. Dmitry Sablin, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee, admits that Russia desperately needs "to stop and regroup" and is experiencing all sorts of shortages, compared to Ukraine that has it all —and then some.
    https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1576796427409559558

    TL;DR
    - restructure industry (how?!)
    - restructure journalism (i.e. censorship if it wasn't already)
    - Ukrainians are losing 7 to 10x the number of troops Russia is
    - Overwhelming majority of Ukrainians are for Russia (how did that work out at the start of the war?)
    - Russia is freeing Ukrainians of constant fear and stress
    - At the end an argument as to whether Belarus is part of Russia or an independent state
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    It’s about 50/50 whether Putin does something with WMD. He is obviously losing and mobilisation likely won’t change that. Why should it?

    NATO would have to respond. Conventionally but powerfully

    And from there it is difficult to see how we avoid total nuclear war
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Right now we are probably relying on the dysfunctionality of the Russian state to keep us all alive
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    @HYUFD see my and other posts where the maths is shown. It isn't just personal allowances it is the tax rate you set. You set a rate that makes it neutral. Let's say that is 40%. If you earn 50K under the present system you pay tax at 0% and then 20%. Under the new system you will pay tax at 40% on all of it. You are therefore paying more in tax so you offset the universal income and still pay tax on top of that.

    You set the rate so it is net neutral.

    You then have the same tax income but all the benefits of the universal income (as described much earlier)

    It is really very simple.
    So you whack up taxes on middle earners and slash growth
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Dura_Ace said:

    Alistair said:

    While Ukraine is generally doing well they got absolutely mauled recently on the way to Davydov Brod.

    https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1576662322428485633

    Careful now. You'll get put on a charge for posting stuff like that.
    I don't think many are pretending Ukraine isn't taking heavy casualties.
    The whole project of counting casualties has been a pretty objective one.
    And Kherson is unlikely to see the same 10/1 casualty ratios that had become the norm in the northeast over the last week.

    But the Russians still appear to be losing, badly.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    I'm coming round to UBI as a policy but I hesitate because it requires consensus discipline of keeping it tied to GDP and not adding additional benefits or tax breaks. I would have a large "emergency" social security fund distributed on basis of need via charities and local organisations and here would have to be support for housing plus more social housing built. Transition would cost too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927

    Dominic Cummings is turning into Peter Hitchens.

    Time to close rotten Tory Party. Close CCHQ, ditch brand.
    Rebuild with new principles, new people, new institutions, new tech.
    Startup 2023, take over after collapse 2024.
    Beating Starmer the easy part, startup toughest...


    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1576884382702477312

    Leading to Farage
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,589
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    @HYUFD see my and other posts where the maths is shown. It isn't just personal allowances it is the tax rate you set. You set a rate that makes it neutral. Let's say that is 40%. If you earn 50K under the present system you pay tax at 0% and then 20%. Under the new system you will pay tax at 40% on all of it. You are therefore paying more in tax so you offset the universal income and still pay tax on top of that.

    You set the rate so it is net neutral.

    You then have the same tax income but all the benefits of the universal income (as described much earlier)

    It is really very simple.
    It really isnt because even taxing at 50% you arent going to make your 10k back from most people in the country. Paying all adults 10k a year costs 220billion more than the current welfare budget. Therefore the government needs 220 billion more tax to make it revenue neutral. Paying 50% tax rate on all earnings would not be near enough because

    a) it increases the revenue governement has to rake in by taxes which you havent explained away

    b) a lot of employers will drop salaries by 10k straight off reducing your tax rate

    c) it is not going to replace the need for benefits as I have shown many get more than 10k already and are still barely managing so you want to give them a 2k cut in income


  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    Leon said:

    It’s about 50/50 whether Putin does something with WMD. He is obviously losing and mobilisation likely won’t change that. Why should it?

    NATO would have to respond. Conventionally but powerfully

    And from there it is difficult to see how we avoid total nuclear war

    There would be diplomatic manoeuvrings by the West with Putin's last major "friends" before that I would imagine. Without the tacit support of China and India Putin is even more screwed. Use of a WMD may change their attitude towards Putin somewhat. But then again, maybe not.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    Pulpstar said:

    Рыбарь confirms Kupyansk has been captured.

    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.

    Sounds like the Ukrainians have got inside their OODA cycle.

    Short version - the Ukrainians are doing stuff so fast that the Russians are x steps behind and reacting to things that happened ages ago.

    Think the French in 1940.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,375
    edited October 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Dominic Cummings is turning into Peter Hitchens.

    Time to close rotten Tory Party. Close CCHQ, ditch brand.
    Rebuild with new principles, new people, new institutions, new tech.
    Startup 2023, take over after collapse 2024.
    Beating Starmer the easy part, startup toughest...


    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1576884382702477312

    Leading to Farage
    It might be healthier ; one a Farage party, and one a Christian Democrat party. Occasional coalitions, as per the Continent, and with Starmer bringing in PR.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,818
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    @HYUFD see my and other posts where the maths is shown. It isn't just personal allowances it is the tax rate you set. You set a rate that makes it neutral. Let's say that is 40%. If you earn 50K under the present system you pay tax at 0% and then 20%. Under the new system you will pay tax at 40% on all of it. You are therefore paying more in tax so you offset the universal income and still pay tax on top of that.

    You set the rate so it is net neutral.

    You then have the same tax income but all the benefits of the universal income (as described much earlier)

    It is really very simple.
    So you whack up taxes on middle earners and slash growth
    No. With the right rate of UBI and tax people on each income would pay net rates very similar to today, just without the stupid jumps, loopholes and disincentives.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    edited October 2022
    by way of light relief, a DuraAce style* (?) political manoeuvre.

    It's not a U Turn says Ashfield MP Lee Anderson - on the ditching of the 45p tax rate
    https://twitter.com/Alison1mackITV/status/1576886149645094912

    * Except in its skill of execution.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    Leon said:

    It’s about 50/50 whether Putin does something with WMD. He is obviously losing and mobilisation likely won’t change that. Why should it?

    NATO would have to respond. Conventionally but powerfully

    And from there it is difficult to see how we avoid total nuclear war

    There would be diplomatic manoeuvrings by the West with Putin's last major "friends" before that I would imagine. Without the tacit support of China and India Putin is even more screwed. Use of a WMD may change their attitude towards Putin somewhat. But then again, maybe not.
    The recent vids of Putin reveal a rabid dog. He’s raging. He really is Hitler in Downfall. I’m not sure how much control Xi or Modi can exert, he probably views both with Dugin-esque racist contempt
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,741
    Leon said:

    It’s about 50/50 whether Putin does something with WMD. He is obviously losing and mobilisation likely won’t change that. Why should it?

    NATO would have to respond. Conventionally but powerfully

    Why? If Russia uses a nuclear weapon then we have to have WW3 and that's the only possible option?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
    Because he is now losing badly and quickly, and he’s played his last conventional card: mobilisation

  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,589

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    @HYUFD see my and other posts where the maths is shown. It isn't just personal allowances it is the tax rate you set. You set a rate that makes it neutral. Let's say that is 40%. If you earn 50K under the present system you pay tax at 0% and then 20%. Under the new system you will pay tax at 40% on all of it. You are therefore paying more in tax so you offset the universal income and still pay tax on top of that.

    You set the rate so it is net neutral.

    You then have the same tax income but all the benefits of the universal income (as described much earlier)

    It is really very simple.
    So you whack up taxes on middle earners and slash growth
    No. With the right rate of UBI and tax people on each income would pay net rates very similar to today, just without the stupid jumps, loopholes and disincentives.
    They cant though because there is a funding gap between what 10k ubi costs and what current benefits cost (both welfare and pensions). That gap can only be closed by taking more tax. That amount is 220 billion
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,045
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
    Because he's a serial crybaby.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
    Because he is now losing badly and quickly, and he’s played his last conventional card: mobilisation

    That's not the point.
    There's been a risk of nuclear confrontation since this kicked off; it's simply not possible to remain terrified for so many months. Constant anxiety, sure.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 706
    Pagan2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
    Explain how those who already get more benefits than 10k and struggle to eat heat and live get by please if you are nuking housing benefit?

    Where I lived in slough your housing benefit for a single person would pay 650 then you got 334.91 + a reduction on your council tax. even the first two add up to more than 10k. UBI only people would take a cut of 1800 or so.
    Trouble is that the effect of HB is ultimately just to inflate the price of housing - it's actually a taxpayer subsidy to landlords, not tenants.
    The problem (as with so many things) isn't really with a long term world without HB, but figuring out how on earth to unwind the current situation to get there, ideally without either crashing the housing market (ideally we want house prices to stay the same in nominal terms and inflation to make the cost fall in real terms), or people ending up sleeping on the streets.
  • Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    @HYUFD see my and other posts where the maths is shown. It isn't just personal allowances it is the tax rate you set. You set a rate that makes it neutral. Let's say that is 40%. If you earn 50K under the present system you pay tax at 0% and then 20%. Under the new system you will pay tax at 40% on all of it. You are therefore paying more in tax so you offset the universal income and still pay tax on top of that.

    You set the rate so it is net neutral.

    You then have the same tax income but all the benefits of the universal income (as described much earlier)

    It is really very simple.
    It really isnt because even taxing at 50% you arent going to make your 10k back from most people in the country. Paying all adults 10k a year costs 220billion more than the current welfare budget. Therefore the government needs 220 billion more tax to make it revenue neutral. Paying 50% tax rate on all earnings would not be near enough because

    a) it increases the revenue governement has to rake in by taxes which you havent explained away

    b) a lot of employers will drop salaries by 10k straight off reducing your tax rate

    c) it is not going to replace the need for benefits as I have shown many get more than 10k already and are still barely managing so you want to give them a 2k cut in income


    It's not all earnings, it is all income. There is a world of difference. And Bart has explained where that will come from.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Chris said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
    Because he's a serial crybaby.
    Yes, my justified fear of imminent nuclear war is akin to a baby mewling

    🤨
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    boulay said:

    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.
    Tactical nuclear weapons don’t generate much long lasting radioactivity. They are designed not to.

    Plus if you managed to introduce long lasting contamination in the current Natalie area, that would hit the water supply to Crimea. Making Crimea contaminated as well.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,589

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    @HYUFD see my and other posts where the maths is shown. It isn't just personal allowances it is the tax rate you set. You set a rate that makes it neutral. Let's say that is 40%. If you earn 50K under the present system you pay tax at 0% and then 20%. Under the new system you will pay tax at 40% on all of it. You are therefore paying more in tax so you offset the universal income and still pay tax on top of that.

    You set the rate so it is net neutral.

    You then have the same tax income but all the benefits of the universal income (as described much earlier)

    It is really very simple.
    It really isnt because even taxing at 50% you arent going to make your 10k back from most people in the country. Paying all adults 10k a year costs 220billion more than the current welfare budget. Therefore the government needs 220 billion more tax to make it revenue neutral. Paying 50% tax rate on all earnings would not be near enough because

    a) it increases the revenue governement has to rake in by taxes which you havent explained away

    b) a lot of employers will drop salaries by 10k straight off reducing your tax rate

    c) it is not going to replace the need for benefits as I have shown many get more than 10k already and are still barely managing so you want to give them a 2k cut in income


    It's not all earnings, it is all income. There is a world of difference. And Bart has explained where that will come from.
    sorry dont believe his figures will come near making up the difference.

    I would love to see ubi and flat rate tax....just I dont see a way to make the figures work without us all paying a lot more tax.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
    Because he is now losing badly and quickly, and he’s played his last conventional card: mobilisation

    That's not the point.
    There's been a risk of nuclear confrontation since this kicked off; it's simply not possible to remain terrified for so many months. Constant anxiety, sure.

    No, I’m saying my terror is a new emotion, when confronted with a new and real possibility that a cornered Putin might do something desperate

    He wasn’t cornered until now. He’s always had options. Now his options are fast running out


  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,299
    AlistairM said:

    When anyone starts to feel sad for Russian troops you just need to read a tweet like this to stop. Same age as my daughter.

    13-year-old Mariya Yudina has been killed in a Russian missile strike on a residential area in Dnipro.

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1576903508661395457

    I'm not sure why there wouldn't be enough sadness for both.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    edited October 2022
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It’s about 50/50 whether Putin does something with WMD. He is obviously losing and mobilisation likely won’t change that. Why should it?

    NATO would have to respond. Conventionally but powerfully

    And from there it is difficult to see how we avoid total nuclear war

    There would be diplomatic manoeuvrings by the West with Putin's last major "friends" before that I would imagine. Without the tacit support of China and India Putin is even more screwed. Use of a WMD may change their attitude towards Putin somewhat. But then again, maybe not.
    The recent vids of Putin reveal a rabid dog. He’s raging. He really is Hitler in Downfall. I’m not sure how much control Xi or Modi can exert, he probably views both with Dugin-esque racist contempt
    Is he really that mad to, and I'm sorry to use a Red Dwarf phrase, effectively say "come on then you slags I'll take you all on"?

    Quite possibly maybe, but he'll lose any sympathetic ear from Erdogan, Modi and Xi. A few large exercises by China near the Ruski border after China condemns them whole-heartedly, to stretch his forces just that little bit thinner..?

    Don't know, you may be right.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
    Because he's a serial crybaby.
    Yes, my justified fear of imminent nuclear war is akin to a baby mewling

    🤨
    Run to Cornwall?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,124
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
    £10k UBI replacing all benefits does not cover rent as well as living costs
    Sure it does. It's £10k per person, not household.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,480
    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    What would be the point of being terrified? In what way would it change my day, or indeed the outcome? I'd tentatively suggest you need to start knapping another sex toy, or find some other way to distract yourself. How about visit Calvine and try to find those 'missing' chefs?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,589

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
    £10k UBI replacing all benefits does not cover rent as well as living costs
    Sure it does. It's £10k per person, not household.
    You know a lot of households are single person?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,736
    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    Oh, I don't know. It's only a U-turn on a minor element of fiscal policy, after all.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,124
    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
    £10k UBI replacing all benefits does not cover rent as well as living costs
    Sure it does. It's £10k per person, not household.
    You know a lot of households are single person?
    Even with two of us, in an expensive British city, we never got £800 per month for JSA and housing benefit combined.

    When you change a system there will always be a few people who lose out, but I don't think there are lots of single people in receipt of large amounts of housing benefit. The system has never been that generous to me when I've needed its help.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 270
    A U-turn has led to this thread being abandoned
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,124

    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, universal income is an insane concept.

    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
    Are you a communist ?

    Housing benefit is being nuked in this new system.
    £10k UBI replacing all benefits does not cover rent as well as living costs
    Sure it does. It's £10k per person, not household.
    You know a lot of households are single person?
    Even with two of us, in an expensive British city, we never got £800 per month for JSA and housing benefit combined.

    When you change a system there will always be a few people who lose out, but I don't think there are lots of single people in receipt of large amounts of housing benefit. The system has never been that generous to me when I've needed its help.
    The ridiculousness of the current system is that, if we'd moved to a smaller flat, but at the same rent, then we'd not have been docked housing benefit for a spare bedroom, and we'd have received more housing benefit.

    I found it incredibly stressful not knowing how much housing benefit we would receive, because the rules for working it out are so opaque. One of the benefits of UBI is its simplicity, which makes it possible to plan.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This is fucking terrifying. Anyone who is not terrified, right now, is wilfully ignoring reality

    It's been scary since Putin first invaded. Under the cover of nuclear threats since the start.
    Why so terrified now ?
    Because he is now losing badly and quickly, and he’s played his last conventional card: mobilisation

    That's not the point.
    There's been a risk of nuclear confrontation since this kicked off; it's simply not possible to remain terrified for so many months. Constant anxiety, sure.

    No, I’m saying my terror is a new emotion, when confronted with a new and real possibility that a cornered Putin might do something desperate

    He wasn’t cornered until now. He’s always had options. Now his options are fast running out


    I was confident that Russia was going to get a heavy defeat after their attempt to take Kviv failed. The conflict is in progress and there is no feasible mechanism to freeze it at the moment even if such a thing were desirable. In fact the Russian collapse is unlikely to be linear so there is a good chance Ukr will have tens of thousands of Russian prisoners and huge swathes of territory recovered in the next few weeks. In addition the stresses inside Russia are mounting and so sudden changes are likely internally on an unknowable timeframe but not a long one.
This discussion has been closed.