More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
Not right. Fixed premium insurance is very common. AA membership for instance.
HMRC collects other stuff. Excise duty frinstance
AA membership is still risk-based, even if its relatively fixed. Commercial AA membership, being riskier, will cost a different amount to regular AA membership. I'm with the RAC and they have multiple tiers of membership options, such as whether you want at-home cover or only for breakdowns away from home (lower risk, so lower premium).
Its certainly not income-based. I've never had to give a copy of my payslips to the RAC and had premiums go up or down dependent upon my earnings.
Excises are a form of taxation. Its literally in the definition of the word.
You are just over concerned to force people into categories. Yes, NI is in some ways a tax, in other ways it is like insurance. No other tax is linked to availability or level of state benefits; the NHS doesn't give a better service to HR payers or refuse to treat CGT dodgers. Have a look at the history of NI. And its name.
Blaming everything on Brexit – or on the Government’s failure to take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit – has become a useful comfort blanket for some on both the Leave and Remain side. But both are ignoring the economic realities of our predicament.
Realistically, over the next few years, we can hope to mitigate but not eliminate some of the negative economic impacts for Brexit. But that shouldn’t be a counsel of despair; just as EU membership did not cause the longer-term problems described above, Brexit doesn’t stop us addressing them. Rebooting our economic and political relationship with the EU will be an important complement – but in no sense a substitute – for doing that. A comprehensive economic strategy to reverse the UK’s relative economic decline needs to be about much more than Brexit.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
I'm a uni drop out, I can tell you for a fact the best engineers I've met don't have degrees
I've always felt a bit of a failure for not dropping out of university
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”. 2. I don’t need to post “positive stuff about trans people” - classic whataboutary, although: 3. This morning I presented the case that the crude statistics which could suggest trans women were more likely to be sex offenders than men, in fact suggested that male sex offenders were falsely claiming to be trans. How is that “anti trans”? 4. The defence of this badly thought through incompetent legislation is that it’s “not valid” (until it was) and any criticism of it is transphobic. As someone with trans friends I am surprised you don’t recognise the damage this is doing to the genuinely trans.
And some of your posts do the opposite in the attempt to score political points.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
Just because T. rex ate large chunks of Triceratops, does not mean you have to eat Triceratops flakes for breakfast.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”. 2. I don’t need to post “positive stuff about trans people” - classic whataboutary, although: 3. This morning I presented the case that the crude statistics which could suggest trans women were more likely to be sex offenders than men, in fact suggested that male sex offenders were falsely claiming to be trans. How is that “anti trans”? 4. The defence of this badly thought through incompetent legislation is that it’s “not valid” (until it was) and any criticism of it is transphobic. As someone with trans friends I am surprised you don’t recognise the damage this is doing to the genuinely trans.
And some of your posts do the opposite in the attempt to score political points.
It shows how pathetic your party now is.
And this post doesn’t?
What are your thoughts on the Scottish GRR bill?
When have I ever attacked trans people to score political points?
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
All of that will be done be ChatGPT3. So what is the point of a degree, in the light of AI?
It is hard to discern, for most. Perhaps we will become like the Japanese, who accept that a Uni degree has almost no point at all, and is essentially a three year break between the swotting of school and the trudge of the salaryman, when you get to fuck and drink yourself stupid. And network
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
Not right. Fixed premium insurance is very common. AA membership for instance.
HMRC collects other stuff. Excise duty frinstance
AA membership is still risk-based, even if its relatively fixed. Commercial AA membership, being riskier, will cost a different amount to regular AA membership. I'm with the RAC and they have multiple tiers of membership options, such as whether you want at-home cover or only for breakdowns away from home (lower risk, so lower premium).
Its certainly not income-based. I've never had to give a copy of my payslips to the RAC and had premiums go up or down dependent upon my earnings.
Excises are a form of taxation. Its literally in the definition of the word.
You are just over concerned to force people into categories. Yes, NI is in some ways a tax, in other ways it is like insurance. No other tax is linked to availability or level of state benefits; the NHS doesn't give a better service to HR payers or refuse to treat CGT dodgers. Have a look at the history of NI. And its name.
Sure there are other taxes that do the same thing. For example there's the tax called the Immigration Health Surcharge that is paid by visa applicants to get access to the NHS.
The name is just marketing spin, its still a tax which is why it is levied on income not risk, unlike genuine insurance policies like the AA, which you used as an example but which actually has multiple risk-based payment options.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
All of that will be done be ChatGPT3. So what is the point of a degree, in the light of AI?
It is hard to discern, for most. Perhaps we will become like the Japanese, who accept that a Uni degree has almost no point at all, and is essentially a three year break between the swotting of school and the trudge of the salaryman, when you get to fuck and drink yourself stupid. And network
And if CHATGPT3 and AI can do most jobs as well as degrees what is the point of working either? Most will be on universal basic income after leaving school with the odd part time job if they are very creative
Blaming everything on Brexit – or on the Government’s failure to take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit – has become a useful comfort blanket for some on both the Leave and Remain side. But both are ignoring the economic realities of our predicament.
Realistically, over the next few years, we can hope to mitigate but not eliminate some of the negative economic impacts for Brexit. But that shouldn’t be a counsel of despair; just as EU membership did not cause the longer-term problems described above, Brexit doesn’t stop us addressing them. Rebooting our economic and political relationship with the EU will be an important complement – but in no sense a substitute – for doing that. A comprehensive economic strategy to reverse the UK’s relative economic decline needs to be about much more than Brexit.
I fear we're doomed for years of speculative articles on 'how to mitigate the effects of Brexit', proffering advice that no one will read and no politician will implement.
Demise of the Scottish independence movement story No. 832,017
Nice of him to remind us (again) about Tory satraps imposing the poll tax on Scotland unnecessarily, after a revaluation, too.
Indeed. You’d have thought the “Scottish” Tories might prefer not to remind people of their poll tax debacle.
Murdo is a sandwich short of a picnic though.
Only ever met him once. We happened to be canvassing the same village (in Angus I think) outwith any particular election period, so low-key, routine stuff. I tried to engage him in polite discourse, but he was a jumpy sort. I got the impression he was nervous/stressed/agitated. Not a good characteristic in a politician.
You shouldn’t have been casually juggling a Claymore* 🙂
*Broadsword or landmine would do in this scenario.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
I'm a uni drop out, I can tell you for a fact the best engineers I've met don't have degrees
I've always felt a bit of a failure for not dropping out of university
You're no failure. One of the best posters here for sure.
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
By definition they didn't due to the high A level and GCSE requirements of entry.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
Can I just say that no-one should have to use a food bank.
I am glad they exist to help those who need them. But their existence is a failure of our society to ensure that those who work earn a living wage and those who cannot are given sufficient welfare for their needs.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
You could only get health insurance or unemployment benefits with National insurance contributions.
Even today most OECD nations fund state healthcare via social insurance not tax
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
All of that will be done be ChatGPT3. So what is the point of a degree, in the light of AI?
It is hard to discern, for most. Perhaps we will become like the Japanese, who accept that a Uni degree has almost no point at all, and is essentially a three year break between the swotting of school and the trudge of the salaryman, when you get to fuck and drink yourself stupid. And network
And if CHATGPT3 and AI can do most jobs as well as degrees what is the point of working either? Most will be on universal basic income after leaving school with the odd part time job if they are very creative
Can I just say that no-one should have to use a food bank.
I am glad they exist to help those who need them. But their existence is a failure of our society to ensure that those who work earn a living wage and those who cannot are given sufficient welfare for their needs.
No it is a function of a strong voluntary sector.
The living wage is much higher than it was, before 1997 we didn't even have a minimum wage and benefits have just gone up with inflation
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
By definition they didn't due to the high A level and GCSE requirements of entry.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
Some very thick people get top A-level grades too.
Are you suggesting that the likes of Tristram Hunt, Dominic Cummings, Naomi Wolfe and Jacob Rees-Mogg - to pick only our own subject - are intelligent? Because if so, I’m adding you to that list.
Edit - also, given the size of the Russell Group, your ‘top 10%’ claim is actually mathematically impossible.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
Trans people are entitled to dignity, respect and consideration. There is no evidence that as a group they are any more prone to crime than the rest of society. But the rights they want can be abused by predatory men seeking access to women only spaces. We need safeguards to ensure that does not happen. The GRR bill has no such safeguards. That is what needs addressed. The safeguards may require modifications of the Equality Act which is ambiguous because it does not distinguish between sex and gender. That is what people should be focusing on. The political game playing around this threatens the reputation and safety of those the proponents say they want to protect.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”.
What the fuck are you hoping to achieve with this relentless jihad? Apart from boring us all into catatonia.
Them White Walkers in Agent Provocateur lingerie are mustering behind the wall to sweep into Westeros. Gotta stay vigilant!
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
I'm a uni drop out, I can tell you for a fact the best engineers I've met don't have degrees
You are in illustrious (possibly infamous!!!) company
Steve Jobs (Apple) Bill Gates (Microsoft) Paul Allen (Microsoft) Larry Ellison (Oracle) Mark Zuckerberg (Beelzebub Inc)
and those are the ones I can think of straightaway.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”. 2. I don’t need to post “positive stuff about trans people” - classic whataboutary, although: 3. This morning I presented the case that the crude statistics which could suggest trans women were more likely to be sex offenders than men, in fact suggested that male sex offenders were falsely claiming to be trans. How is that “anti trans”? 4. The defence of this badly thought through incompetent legislation is that it’s “not valid” (until it was) and any criticism of it is transphobic. As someone with trans friends I am surprised you don’t recognise the damage this is doing to the genuinely trans.
And some of your posts do the opposite in the attempt to score political points.
It shows how pathetic your party now is.
And this post doesn’t?
What are your thoughts on the Scottish GRR bill?
When have I ever attacked trans people to score political points?
When have I attacked trans people to score political points?
For the hard of thinking, the criticism is of the Scottish government’s badly thought through GRR bill and the opportunity it will present men with to gain access to single sex spaces.
Once again, what’s your opinion on the Scottish GRR bill?
Its defenders just accuse critics of attacking trans people, so should I assume you support it?
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
By definition they didn't due to the high A level and GCSE requirements of entry.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
Some very thick people get top A-level grades too.
Are you suggesting that the likes of Tristram Hunt, Dominic Cummings, Naomi Wolfe and Jacob Rees-Mogg - to pick only our own subject - are intelligent? Because if so, I’m adding you to that list.
Edit - also, given the size of the Russell Group, your ‘top 10%’ claim is actually mathematically impossible.
They are all of above average intelligence on any definition. You just dislike their politics.
The Russell Group make up less than 20% of universities and as about 35% of 18 year olds go to university my 10% claim was correct
I find your sallies into the GRR more interesting than complaints about Brexit.
Being able to self-identify as a different sex at sixteen legally seems a piss-take by Nicola. I had to check it wasn't April the first, or it wasn't a 1970s Monty Python episode. I'm an old dinorsaur, no doubt.
No group of people are all Saints. There will be sinners among them. That goes for Ukranian soldiers and Catholic priests group. If there's an advantage to be gained, it will be used.
As a man, I'd say women are on the whole more trust-worthy if you asked me to generalise. The inhabitants of prisons tend to show a strong bias for Y chromosmes. Not all men are bad, of course, but enough are. Pretending that those transitioning to female are automatilly perfect shows a detachment from reality.
It's not a major subject for men because we won't be affected, but I can understand the fears of some women.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
Not right. Fixed premium insurance is very common. AA membership for instance.
HMRC collects other stuff. Excise duty frinstance
AA membership is still risk-based, even if its relatively fixed. Commercial AA membership, being riskier, will cost a different amount to regular AA membership. I'm with the RAC and they have multiple tiers of membership options, such as whether you want at-home cover or only for breakdowns away from home (lower risk, so lower premium).
Its certainly not income-based. I've never had to give a copy of my payslips to the RAC and had premiums go up or down dependent upon my earnings.
Excises are a form of taxation. Its literally in the definition of the word.
You are just over concerned to force people into categories. Yes, NI is in some ways a tax, in other ways it is like insurance. No other tax is linked to availability or level of state benefits; the NHS doesn't give a better service to HR payers or refuse to treat CGT dodgers. Have a look at the history of NI. And its name.
Sure there are other taxes that do the same thing. For example there's the tax called the Immigration Health Surcharge that is paid by visa applicants to get access to the NHS.
The name is just marketing spin, its still a tax which is why it is levied on income not risk, unlike genuine insurance policies like the AA, which you used as an example but which actually has multiple risk-based payment options.
Does Twitter now default to ‘For you’ (loads of advertising and right wing shite) and ‘Following’ (tweets over which one might have exerted a minimal amount of selectivity)? Annoying if so.
Gentle deflation of the bubble in absolute terms but more substantial in real terms is what is needed - rather than the crash some advocate. Some of us remember the years of negative equity and the problems that caused.
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
By definition they didn't due to the high A level and GCSE requirements of entry.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
Some very thick people get top A-level grades too.
Are you suggesting that the likes of Tristram Hunt, Dominic Cummings, Naomi Wolfe and Jacob Rees-Mogg - to pick only our own subject - are intelligent? Because if so, I’m adding you to that list.
Edit - also, given the size of the Russell Group, your ‘top 10%’ claim is actually mathematically impossible.
They are all of above average intelligence on any definition. You just dislike their politics.
The Russell Group make up less than 20% of universities and as about 35% of 18 year olds go to university my 10% claim was correct
You’re forgetting size difference. They make up 27% of the student population.
On the matter of Irish attitudes to the English (previous thread)...
I write as the English child of Irish parents, with dual citizenship and most of my extended family in Ireland.
My sense is that 'English', 'Scots', 'Welsh' ellicit a different emotional response amongst Irish people compared to 'British'. The latter is more likely to evoke understandable historic grievances, including partition and the subsequent maladministration in the North. The UK and Ireland joinng the EEC/EU at the same time did much to ameliorate that, with the two juristictions finding much in common as 'off-shore' members of the continental block.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of Brexit, it has inevitably eroded that change in the relationship.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
I'm a uni drop out, I can tell you for a fact the best engineers I've met don't have degrees
I've always felt a bit of a failure for not dropping out of university
You're no failure. One of the best posters here for sure.
Why, thank you
But, you know, the cool kids drop out and start multi-billion $ startups etc... (And was just kidding - dropping out of my PhD was a very real possibility at one point; I'm glad I stuck it out and got the bugger finished, even though I've gone in a bit of a different direction since)
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
By definition they didn't due to the high A level and GCSE requirements of entry.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
Some very thick people get top A-level grades too.
Are you suggesting that the likes of Tristram Hunt, Dominic Cummings, Naomi Wolfe and Jacob Rees-Mogg - to pick only our own subject - are intelligent? Because if so, I’m adding you to that list.
Edit - also, given the size of the Russell Group, your ‘top 10%’ claim is actually mathematically impossible.
They are all of above average intelligence on any definition. You just dislike their politics.
The Russell Group make up less than 20% of universities and as about 35% of 18 year olds go to university my 10% claim was correct
You’re forgetting size difference. They make up 27% of the student population.
Which would still be about 10% of 18 year olds given only 38% go to university.
Not forgetting some Russell Group students are postgraduates who went to other universities for their undergraduate degrees
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
By definition they didn't due to the high A level and GCSE requirements of entry.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
Some very thick people get top A-level grades too.
Are you suggesting that the likes of Tristram Hunt, Dominic Cummings, Naomi Wolfe and Jacob Rees-Mogg - to pick only our own subject - are intelligent? Because if so, I’m adding you to that list.
Edit - also, given the size of the Russell Group, your ‘top 10%’ claim is actually mathematically impossible.
They are all of above average intelligence on any definition. You just dislike their politics.
The Russell Group make up less than 20% of universities and as about 35% of 18 year olds go to university my 10% claim was correct
You’re forgetting size difference. They make up 27% of the student population.
Which would still be about 10% of 18 year olds given only 38% go to university.
Not forgetting some Russell Group students are postgraduates who went to other universities for their undergraduate degrees
So you’re saying that large numbers of the most intellectually able go to other unis? Which undermines your point.
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
The irony is that that post won't be understood by the one person who needs to understand it.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
All of that will be done be ChatGPT3. So what is the point of a degree, in the light of AI?
It is hard to discern, for most. Perhaps we will become like the Japanese, who accept that a Uni degree has almost no point at all, and is essentially a three year break between the swotting of school and the trudge of the salaryman, when you get to fuck and drink yourself stupid. And network
Bullshit. I have not seen any scientific analysis by ChatGPT3. Read a scientific paper, not twitter to do research.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
You will give Bart a sore head, he will not find that in his EFD book.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
Trans people are entitled to dignity, respect and consideration. There is no evidence that as a group they are any more prone to crime than the rest of society. But the rights they want can be abused by predatory men seeking access to women only spaces. We need safeguards to ensure that does not happen. The GRR bill has no such safeguards. That is what needs addressed. The safeguards may require modifications of the Equality Act which is ambiguous because it does not distinguish between sex and gender. That is what people should be focusing on. The political game playing around this threatens the reputation and safety of those the proponents say they want to protect.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
That's odd. So you're saying that my occasional comments of concern that CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people) means that I 'denounce' *everyone* who raises concerns?
For example, I disagree with Bart on some of this stuff, but I don't think I've ever said, or implied, that he's a transphobe. I could say the same with DavidL and others.
And when you say 'many mornings' : how many? (I do wonder if you've confused me with another poster)
But Carlotta never said anything negative about trans people, she merely raised concerns that "men" would abuse the GRR and you denounced her as transphobic for that, simply because the word cross-dressers were there.
How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and she called you misogynistic for disregarding the very valid concerns of women?
If anyone is being transphobic ironically its you, by claiming that a reference to men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” is about trans people, when its not, its about men.
IMV she has said negative stuff about trans people; this current mess in Scotland is the latest 'threat' to concentrate on.
I have been called misogynistic on here for that very reason (not by CV though, who I generally respect in other ways). And when I'm called it, I think about *why* I'm called it, and if I disagree I say so.
If you think I'm misogynistic for disregarding the very valid concerns of women (hint: I don't disregard them); then are you transphobic for disregarding the very valid concerns of trans people?
Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense; cross-dressing is synonymous with transvestite, as I showed with the link earlier.
Blaming everything on Brexit – or on the Government’s failure to take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit – has become a useful comfort blanket for some on both the Leave and Remain side. But both are ignoring the economic realities of our predicament.
Realistically, over the next few years, we can hope to mitigate but not eliminate some of the negative economic impacts for Brexit. But that shouldn’t be a counsel of despair; just as EU membership did not cause the longer-term problems described above, Brexit doesn’t stop us addressing them. Rebooting our economic and political relationship with the EU will be an important complement – but in no sense a substitute – for doing that. A comprehensive economic strategy to reverse the UK’s relative economic decline needs to be about much more than Brexit.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
Not right. Fixed premium insurance is very common. AA membership for instance.
HMRC collects other stuff. Excise duty frinstance
AA membership is still risk-based, even if its relatively fixed. Commercial AA membership, being riskier, will cost a different amount to regular AA membership. I'm with the RAC and they have multiple tiers of membership options, such as whether you want at-home cover or only for breakdowns away from home (lower risk, so lower premium).
Its certainly not income-based. I've never had to give a copy of my payslips to the RAC and had premiums go up or down dependent upon my earnings.
Excises are a form of taxation. Its literally in the definition of the word.
You are just over concerned to force people into categories. Yes, NI is in some ways a tax, in other ways it is like insurance. No other tax is linked to availability or level of state benefits; the NHS doesn't give a better service to HR payers or refuse to treat CGT dodgers. Have a look at the history of NI. And its name.
That is too sensible for Bart, the name was not chosen by chance. It was as insurance for NHS and pensions not as a TAX. Fact the governments have abused that and used it as part of hgeneral tax take rather than putting it aside for the Insurance cover does not change the fact , it was intended as Insurance.
Comments
Realistically, over the next few years, we can hope to mitigate but not eliminate some of the negative economic impacts for Brexit. But that shouldn’t be a counsel of despair; just as EU membership did not cause the longer-term problems described above, Brexit doesn’t stop us addressing them. Rebooting our economic and political relationship with the EU will be an important complement – but in no sense a substitute – for doing that. A comprehensive economic strategy to reverse the UK’s relative economic decline needs to be about much more than Brexit.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/blaming-brexit-ignores-economic-reality-2119536?
What are your thoughts on the Scottish GRR bill?
It is hard to discern, for most. Perhaps we will become like the Japanese, who accept that a Uni degree has almost no point at all, and is essentially a three year break between the swotting of school and the trudge of the salaryman, when you get to fuck and drink yourself stupid. And network
The name is just marketing spin, its still a tax which is why it is levied on income not risk, unlike genuine insurance policies like the AA, which you used as an example but which actually has multiple risk-based payment options.
Also hence why why it is levied by HMRC, just like other taxes like excise duty which you named. HMRC even has "tax codes" for the various excise duties that it charges, see 1.3 on this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-trade-tariff-excise-duties-reliefs-drawbacks-and-allowances/uk-trade-tariff-excise-duties-reliefs-drawbacks-and-allowances
Can you name any actual insurance policy that completely ignores risk and instead goes based on your income?
*Broadsword or landmine would do in this scenario.
Virtually every Russell Group student is certainly in the top 10% academically of the subject they study
I am glad they exist to help those who need them. But their existence is a failure of our society to ensure that those who work earn a living wage and those who cannot are given sufficient welfare for their needs.
Even today most OECD nations fund state healthcare via social insurance not tax
The living wage is much higher than it was, before 1997 we didn't even have a minimum wage and benefits have just gone up with inflation
Are you suggesting that the likes of Tristram Hunt, Dominic Cummings, Naomi Wolfe and Jacob Rees-Mogg - to pick only our own subject - are intelligent? Because if so, I’m adding you to that list.
Edit - also, given the size of the Russell Group, your ‘top 10%’ claim is actually mathematically impossible.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/feb/01/uk-house-prices-fall-for-fifth-month-in-a-row
Steve Jobs (Apple)
Bill Gates (Microsoft)
Paul Allen (Microsoft)
Larry Ellison (Oracle)
Mark Zuckerberg (Beelzebub Inc)
and those are the ones I can think of straightaway.
For the hard of thinking, the criticism is of the Scottish government’s badly thought through GRR bill and the opportunity it will present men with to gain access to single sex spaces.
Once again, what’s your opinion on the Scottish GRR bill?
Its defenders just accuse critics of attacking trans people, so should I assume you support it?
The Russell Group make up less than 20% of universities and as about 35% of 18 year olds go to university my 10% claim was correct
I find your sallies into the GRR more interesting than complaints about Brexit.
Being able to self-identify as a different sex at sixteen legally seems a piss-take by Nicola.
I had to check it wasn't April the first, or it wasn't a 1970s Monty Python episode. I'm an old dinorsaur, no doubt.
No group of people are all Saints. There will be sinners among them. That goes for Ukranian soldiers and Catholic priests group. If there's an advantage to be gained, it will be used.
As a man, I'd say women are on the whole more trust-worthy if you asked me to generalise. The inhabitants of prisons tend to show a strong bias for Y chromosmes. Not all men are bad, of course, but enough are. Pretending that those transitioning to female are automatilly perfect shows a detachment from reality.
It's not a major subject for men because we won't be affected, but I can understand the fears of some women.
NEW THREAD
I write as the English child of Irish parents, with dual citizenship and most of my extended family in Ireland.
My sense is that 'English', 'Scots', 'Welsh' ellicit a different emotional response amongst Irish people compared to 'British'. The latter is more likely to evoke understandable historic grievances, including partition and the subsequent maladministration in the North. The UK and Ireland joinng the EEC/EU at the same time did much to ameliorate that, with the two juristictions finding much in common as 'off-shore' members of the continental block.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of Brexit, it has inevitably eroded that change in the relationship.
But, you know, the cool kids drop out and start multi-billion $ startups etc...
(And was just kidding - dropping out of my PhD was a very real possibility at one point; I'm glad I stuck it out and got the bugger finished, even though I've gone in a bit of a different direction since)
Not forgetting some Russell Group students are postgraduates who went to other universities for their undergraduate degrees
I’m adding to that list….
(BSc, PhD Warwick)
I have been called misogynistic on here for that very reason (not by CV though, who I generally respect in other ways). And when I'm called it, I think about *why* I'm called it, and if I disagree I say so.
If you think I'm misogynistic for disregarding the very valid concerns of women (hint: I don't disregard them); then are you transphobic for disregarding the very valid concerns of trans people?
Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense; cross-dressing is synonymous with transvestite, as I showed with the link earlier.