Looks like I am first! Had an interesting Cheltenham experience yesterday in the 70 minute queue to get through passport control at Barcelona Airport. A group of Scousers were watching one of the races on their phones and got louder and louder as it progressed. The roar at the end was deafening. They had all pooled in to back the winner and made an absolute killing. No idea which race it was, but it had set up their trip.
Nice header, and I like the selections, but if you insist on using metric race distances, people will think you are a Russian troll or one of Leon's ChatGPT experiments.
I know nothing whatever about horses and have never seen the thrill in betting on them, so I'm irresistibly reminded of Lord Salisbury's comment about his racing-obsessed colleague the Duke of Devonshire, that "all our political arrangements have to be hung up until some quadruped has run faster than some other quadruped". The Duke is memorable for refusing to become Prime Minister three times, preferring to back his horses in the Derby.
However, I'm sure the thread is excellent and good luck to those who do bet.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
I am intrigued at what Hunt will come out with today. Sunak and him are the only 2 in the cabinet that I can vaguely appreciate. The spin comes in advance of budgets now, with the sting only coming later once the small print is read, as in your comment.
In particular it will be interesting to see Hunt claim that the finances are better, and inflation tamed, yet public sector workers deserve real terms pay cuts.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
I am intrigued at what Hunt will come out with today. Sunak and him are the only 2 in the cabinet that I can vaguely appreciate. The spin comes in advance of budgets now, with the sting only coming later once the small print is read, as in your comment.
In particular it will be interesting to see Hunt claim that the finances are better, and inflation tamed, yet public sector workers deserve real terms pay cuts.
I am worried Hunt will harm pensioners by restricting tax-free take-outs and not ending the anomaly around contributions for those returning to work, while concentrating on the lifetime allowance which only affects the better-off, even if that group includes doctors.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
As there is nothing happening on the political front today owing to Cheltenham, the Rest is Politics looks back to a kinder, gentler time...
20 years on from the invasion of Iraq, Rory speaks to Alastair about the build up, aftermath, and legacy of the event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7xQ8PnybcM (other podcast platforms are available)
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
Next time The Met tell you they don't have enough money to work effectively....
The Metropolitan Police is planning to spend £440,000 on mounting certificates and picture frames in what it said was an important measure to maintain morale.
The Met said the framing initiative was a way to “recognise and reward” more than 44,000 officers and staff for their bravery in the line of duty, “innovative instigations”, long service, and for those retiring. The force has advertised for companies to bid for a contract to supply and deliver picture frames and certificates for its “employee recognition programme”. The contract would last for four years.
The move comes despite complaints by Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner, that the Met is struggling financially.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
As there is nothing happening on the political front today owing to Cheltenham, the Rest is Politics looks back to a kinder, gentler time...
20 years on from the invasion of Iraq, Rory speaks to Alastair about the build up, aftermath, and legacy of the event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7xQ8PnybcM (other podcast platforms are available)
An enormous mistake, both the policy and its execution, whose malign results still resonate.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
I am intrigued at what Hunt will come out with today. Sunak and him are the only 2 in the cabinet that I can vaguely appreciate. The spin comes in advance of budgets now, with the sting only coming later once the small print is read, as in your comment.
In particular it will be interesting to see Hunt claim that the finances are better, and inflation tamed, yet public sector workers deserve real terms pay cuts.
I am worried Hunt will harm pensioners by restricting tax-free take-outs and not ending the anomaly around contributions for those returning to work, while concentrating on the lifetime allowance which only affects the better-off, even if that group includes doctors.
The policy is supposed to be targeted precisely to encourage returns to work, so there's some hope ?
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
British customers of the world's biggest cryptocurrency exchange face being unable to withdraw their money from the platform within months.
Binance has been forced to suspend withdrawals to British bank accounts following pressure from regulators on the cryptocurrency giant’s payment provider.
Paysafe said that the regulatory environment made it “too challenging” to process payments for the business and would shut it off in May.
Binance told customers this week that Paysafe would no longer handle card transactions and bank transfers in sterling from May 22. It has suspended the services for new users from Monday.
The move will effectively leave no way for customers in Britain to withdraw pounds from the platform to their bank accounts after that date, although it is understood that the companies are working on a way to keep some payments flowing.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
Sounds plausible.
Hence the dilemma of regulation and deregulation. It's not hard to get faster growth by relaxing rules, but the fewer rules, the more and worse occasional explosions. Which have a horrible aftereffect on growth-see 2008.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
The resultant fiscal tightening also tends to lessen the need for further rises in interest rates, which you were expressing concern about, of course. And banks are in any event likely to raise the cost of borrowing.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
What I find surprising about that is that the US is as signed up to Basel III as we are. These regulations and the capital requirements they impose have undoubtedly made banks more secure and safer but they have equally increased both the cost of capital and reduced the quantity of capital available for investment.
I think SVB was in an exceptional situation for reasons I have set out before. It had an unusually solvent customer base with large deposits held by relatively fewer players who were going to be more mobile when the crunch came.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
In the pandemic we called a lot of those workers heroes and the majority of the public got involved in weekly ritual clapping for them. It is pretty shameful that they were forgotten not after a decade or even a year, but a few months after the end of the pandemic.
As unexciting as it would be for the rest of us, public sector pay should be right at the top of the Chancellors priorities.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
See the debate about doctors pay, or the tendency to squeeze pay ranges that's been going on for years now in the public sector. (What money there is has gone on starting salaries, whereas people at the top of, say, the classroom teacher range can go whistle.)
It's the philosophical knot at the heart of the current model of Conservatism... Is it perhaps driven by the pensioner domination, 100k seems like an absurdly huge amount of salary?
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
What I find surprising about that is that the US is as signed up to Basel III as we are. These regulations and the capital requirements they impose have undoubtedly made banks more secure and safer but they have equally increased both the cost of capital and reduced the quantity of capital available for investment.
I think SVB was in an exceptional situation for reasons I have set out before. It had an unusually solvent customer base with large deposits held by relatively fewer players who were going to be more mobile when the crunch came.
Trump exempted "mid sized" banks from Basel II, under some of the rules available for challenger banks. It has, unsurprisingly, gone badly. It's also a lesson for the EC who are attempting to dodge implementation of the next set of capital requirements to attract investment out of the City, after this investors will be very wary of any country which is attempting to sidestep full implementation of capital requirements.
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
Sounds plausible.
Hence the dilemma of regulation and deregulation. It's not hard to get faster growth by relaxing rules, but the fewer rules, the more and worse occasional explosions. Which have a horrible aftereffect on growth-see 2008.
The problem here is that sometimes banks lend money to people and businesses, and this is called banking. But sometimes banks use it to increase their own leverage for trading, and this is called casino banking.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
For perspective, a 2 adult 2 children household on a gross annual income of £100,000 is better off than 82% of their peers…..
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
Another anti-aspiration policy from the government if it's true. Very disappointing. I'd rather a higher overall rate than all of these idiotic marginal rates. Just bring the 45p rate in at £100k and get rid of all the withdrawals, caps and tapers. The income tax system in this country is disincentivising high earning people from working full time, there's no other country in the world that does the same, it's mental.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
For perspective, a 2 adult 2 children household on a gross annual income of £100,000 is better off than 82% of their peers…..
Looks like I am first! Had an interesting Cheltenham experience yesterday in the 70 minute queue to get through passport control at Barcelona Airport. A group of Scousers were watching one of the races on their phones and got louder and louder as it progressed. The roar at the end was deafening. They had all pooled in to back the winner and made an absolute killing. No idea which race it was, but it had set up their trip.
Yes these post Brexit waits getting through passport control at EU airports are fun. Nice airport's the same. It took about an hour to get through four weeks ago when pre Brexitit it used to take you the time it took you to walk through. At least four other flights just walked past us while we waited. People were getting mighty pissed off. You were lucky you had some entertainment
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
Sounds plausible.
Hence the dilemma of regulation and deregulation. It's not hard to get faster growth by relaxing rules, but the fewer rules, the more and worse occasional explosions. Which have a horrible aftereffect on growth-see 2008.
The problem here is that sometimes banks lend money to people and businesses, and this is called banking. But sometimes banks use it to increase their own leverage for trading, and this is called casino banking.
ETA the Feds should want to restrict the latter but risks banks cutting back loans to Main Street rather than Wall Street.
The priorities for me today in the budget are: (1) a continuation and extension of the super reliefs for capital spending (and ideally training as well). We have an urgent need to have an investment boom in this country. (2) Pension reforms so that doctors with over £1m in their pension funds do not feel a burning need to go and spend more time with their money. (3) some relaxation of budgetary constraints so that the wave of public sector strikes can be settled. (4) A clear path to reduced borrowing over the medium term. (5) A clear commitment to sorting out the National Insurance mess and the consolidation of NI into IT so that all income is taxed at the same rate for everyone regardless of age. (6) A commitment to tax simplification. (7) More investment in essential infrastructure. (8) A focus on education at all levels but with the promised training/education right to encourage life term learning.
We need to boost investment, improve productivity, increase real wages and reduce our balance of payments deficit. It is a very difficult circle to square.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Why are Rishi Sunak's personal ratings struggling to revive Tory electoral fortunes? (Part one) Sunak's ratings are significantly better than either of his predecessors. But the party continues to languish in the polls. Digging deeper into the polling reveals some possible reasons why.
The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
The Tories are here to protect the donor class. Anyone who thinks they're going to look after anyone on a 6 figure salary is a mug.
Looks like I am first! Had an interesting Cheltenham experience yesterday in the 70 minute queue to get through passport control at Barcelona Airport. A group of Scousers were watching one of the races on their phones and got louder and louder as it progressed. The roar at the end was deafening. They had all pooled in to back the winner and made an absolute killing. No idea which race it was, but it had set up their trip.
Yes these post Brexit waits getting through passport control at EU airports are fun. Nice airport's the same. It took about an hour to get through four weeks ago when pre Brexitit it used to take you the time it took you to walk through. At least four other flights just walked past us while we waited. People were getting mighty pissed off. You were lucky you had some entertainment
I'm taking a car to the Nurburgring in May. I have to buy two Eurotunnel tickets, drive it off the trailer at one end, drive it on the Eurotunnel seperately, then put it back on the trailer at the other end. Utter madness but necessary due to the completely random interpretation of vehicle import regs every time I enter the UK. Every single person that voted leave can lick me where I shit.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
Yes, it’s become a cliff edge, a salary it’s not worth creeping over because of the implications for tax and benefits. It doesn’t need to be the full £100k either - add a company car and private healthcare, and you can trip your tax code over the limit on a much lower salary.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
The base will love it. RDS knows exactly what he's doing.
That part of 'the base' might well stick with Trump. So far the mini me hasn't yet managed to differentiate himself much. And every move in a Trumpite direction makes him look less like the grownup alternative.
Having said that, having Florida in the bag gives him a chance. It would be amusing if it comes down to solidly Democratic California to choose which arse cheek gets the nomination.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
What marginal tax rate does someone on £98k now face if offered a payrise, if they have pre-school age children?
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
And yet all you really end up doing is pushing people earning £100k into 4 day weeks. I've had three requests for it from my team over the last year. Only a complete mug would take the salary increase.
The priorities for me today in the budget are: (1) a continuation and extension of the super reliefs for capital spending (and ideally training as well). We have an urgent need to have an investment boom in this country. (2) Pension reforms so that doctors with over £1m in their pension funds do not feel a burning need to go and spend more time with their money. (3) some relaxation of budgetary constraints so that the wave of public sector strikes can be settled. (4) A clear path to reduced borrowing over the medium term. (5) A clear commitment to sorting out the National Insurance mess and the consolidation of NI into IT so that all income is taxed at the same rate for everyone regardless of age. (6) A commitment to tax simplification. (7) More investment in essential infrastructure. (8) A focus on education at all levels but with the promised training/education right to encourage life term learning.
We need to boost investment, improve productivity, increase real wages and reduce our balance of payments deficit. It is a very difficult circle to square.
Number 5 makes complete sense but is the least likely….because politics & voters…..I would start by salami slicing - introduce a 5% rate for pension income…..you know the rest…..
Good to see the Fed review the lower limit on capital requirements. One of my colleagues suggested yesterday that much of the US economic growth over the last few years has actually been down to Trump's loosening of that rule. He suggested that 18-20 banks went from ~10:1 leverage to ~40:1 leverage. That's allowed these regions to benefit from a huge increase in money supply that hast happened in the UK or EU.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
What I find surprising about that is that the US is as signed up to Basel III as we are. These regulations and the capital requirements they impose have undoubtedly made banks more secure and safer but they have equally increased both the cost of capital and reduced the quantity of capital available for investment.
I think SVB was in an exceptional situation for reasons I have set out before. It had an unusually solvent customer base with large deposits held by relatively fewer players who were going to be more mobile when the crunch came.
Trump exempted "mid sized" banks from Basel II, under some of the rules available for challenger banks. It has, unsurprisingly, gone badly. It's also a lesson for the EC who are attempting to dodge implementation of the next set of capital requirements to attract investment out of the City, after this investors will be very wary of any country which is attempting to sidestep full implementation of capital requirements.
I think that there is a strong argument that the Basel requirements is one of the reasons that recovery from 2008 was so slow. It reduced available funds and increased the cost of those funds. The question is whether this was a necessary recalibration of the madness that led to the GFC or whether the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. I do not think the answer is clear cut. The temptation of regulators to fight the last battle is always strong.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
I am intrigued at what Hunt will come out with today. Sunak and him are the only 2 in the cabinet that I can vaguely appreciate. The spin comes in advance of budgets now, with the sting only coming later once the small print is read, as in your comment.
In particular it will be interesting to see Hunt claim that the finances are better, and inflation tamed, yet public sector workers deserve real terms pay cuts.
I am worried Hunt will harm pensioners by restricting tax-free take-outs and not ending the anomaly around contributions for those returning to work, while concentrating on the lifetime allowance which only affects the better-off, even if that group includes doctors.
The policy is supposed to be targeted precisely to encourage returns to work, so there's some hope ?
Steve Webb believes the increase in the limits will have the opposite effect with high paid individuals accelerating their contributions and then leaving earlier, with those who have already left not coming back.
What is needed is people to be able to withdraw from making contributions and accumulating pension years so they don't attract a punitive tax liability on marginal income. That would solve the Doctor issue on pensions and also be fair.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
That might be true, but Max makes a very good point about the tax mess for those on the £100k margin. Whatever you think about the wealthy/ very well of, it's stupid policy.
The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
If my wife was awake she would be able to tell me the current price at Hawes (community ran not for profit petrol station that does hsave the rural tax discount but that really only reflects the extra delivery costs).
Think its £1.45 a litre of diesel though so that shows the profits being made...
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
And yet all you really end up doing is pushing people earning £100k into 4 day weeks. I've had three requests for it from my team over the last year. Only a complete mug would take the salary increase.
Yes, I am taking Time Off in Lieu rather than overtime for covering absences now. The rates of pay and tax implications make it the only sensible thing to do.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
That might be true, but Max makes a very good point about the tax mess for those on the £100k margin. Whatever you think about the wealthy/ very well of, it's stupid policy.
Yep. If you look at a graph of the marginal tax (and other deductions) rate it goes up and down like a yo-yo with a particular spike at 100k. It should be a steady upward slope or upward steps. It is a mess that needs sorting.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Come on, the consistent defence of the establishment wrong-doers by certain posters on here is silly.
Is there a non zero chance it never happened sure. Is it very likely, based on the evidence in the public domain, that it happened, yes, at the least very likely.
The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
I agree with this. It is why I thought it surprising that further consolidation was being allowed in the mobile phone market. The fewer the players the likelier oligarchic behaviour will penalise consumers.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
And yet all you really end up doing is pushing people earning £100k into 4 day weeks. I've had three requests for it from my team over the last year. Only a complete mug would take the salary increase.
Yes, I am taking Time Off in Lieu rather than overtime for covering absences now. The rates of pay and tax implications make it the only sensible thing to do.
I did it when I approached £100k in my last job. It was only in this one where I started on well above that level that there was no need to do it. At my last company it was a very big problem for some divisions where the market salary was £110k or something like that which meant people would prefer the day off and a £90k salary. That's what did.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
That might be true, but Max makes a very good point about the tax mess for those on the £100k margin. Whatever you think about the wealthy/ very well of, it's stupid policy.
Yep. If you look at a graph of the marginal tax (and other deductions) rate it goes up and down like a yo-yo with a particular spike at 100k. It should be a steady upward slope or upward steps. It is a mess that needs sorting.
If the childcare stuff today also has a £100k limit, then someone on £98k offered a 5% pay rise will want to turn it down, because they’d end up with considerably less money on £103k than £98k. It’s totally bonkers.
One of the trends we are seeing out here in the sandpit, is more families settling here, often for a decade or more. Whereas it used to be a much more transient population of mostly young singles, rather than people in their 40s. Stuff like 70% marginal tax rates at £100k encourages such emigration of the top 10%.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
If my wife was awake she would be able to tell me the current price at Hawes (community ran not for profit petrol station that does hsave the rural tax discount but that really only reflects the extra delivery costs).
Think its £1.45 a litre of diesel though so that shows the profits being made...
In the south I have seen derv at 1.75.9 and 1. 90 on motorway service stations. We are all being royally ripped off but then was it ever thus. Eg... A yr ago a 2 quid bottle of heinz tomato ketchup in tesco is now 4 quid. They are all taking the piss.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
I think you mean £40k?
Not if you're a high earner, the threshold tapers down to £4k!
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
I think you mean £40k?
Yep and you can use the previous 2 years allowance also. The 4k comes in when you have taken your pension to avoid recycling.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Come on, the consistent defence of the establishment wrong-doers by certain posters on here is silly.
Is there a non zero chance it never happened sure. Is it very likely, based on the evidence in the public domain, that it happened, yes, at the least very likely.
That's what I'm trying to get to: what actual evidence *is* in the public domain? You provide none, but it's a fair question. What do you base your conclusion that it 'at least very likely' happened?
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
I think you mean £40k?
Not if you're a high earner, the threshold tapers down to £4k!
Yeah it's another ridiculous taper, the whole income tax, pensions, NI and savings system needs junking and rebooting. It's not fit for purpose. It punishes people who are able to earn more and discourages them rather than encouraging them to do so and pay more tax.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
For a Churchill admirer, he sounds remarkably like Chamberlain.
And I'm not sure even the latter would call a full blown armed invasion 'a territorial dispute'.
It's somewhat remarkable so many Republicans cannot see any downsides for itself to Russia succeeding in seizing yet more territory from its neighbours by force.
Being charitable perhaps they don't realise just how rich the USA still is and thus how cost effective support for Ukraine is.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
That might be true, but Max makes a very good point about the tax mess for those on the £100k margin. Whatever you think about the wealthy/ very well of, it's stupid policy.
Yep. If you look at a graph of the marginal tax (and other deductions) rate it goes up and down like a yo-yo with a particular spike at 100k. It should be a steady upward slope or upward steps. It is a mess that needs sorting.
Which makes Kwasi K's decision to cut the higher rate of tax look even more stupid. He could simply have restored the personal allowance to those above £100K, which would have had a similar effect, at least for those at the 'lower end' of the £100sK pay bracket - and without the controversy.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
I think you mean £40k?
Yep and you can use the previous 2 years allowance also. The 4k comes in when you have taken your pension to avoid recycling.
No, the private pension limit tapers at a 50% rate from £240k upwards. It's one of the things consultants moan about.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Come on, the consistent defence of the establishment wrong-doers by certain posters on here is silly.
Is there a non zero chance it never happened sure. Is it very likely, based on the evidence in the public domain, that it happened, yes, at the least very likely.
That's what I'm trying to get to: what actual evidence *is* in the public domain? You provide none, but it's a fair question. What do you base your conclusion that it 'at least very likely' happened?
Just the book? The reporting on the book?
Along with a repeated non denial, yes. “He hit me many times, over many years.”
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
I think you mean £40k?
Yep and you can use the previous 2 years allowance also. The 4k comes in when you have taken your pension to avoid recycling.
No above a certain income threshold, think it's about £150k, you can only pay in £4k tax free. That means if you are taxed at 45% on the way in and 40% on the way out then you face an effective tax rate of 67% on income paid in and taken in retirement. And the government says it wants to encourage retirement savings! Another piece of Osborne era idiocy.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
I think you mean £40k?
Yep and you can use the previous 2 years allowance also. The 4k comes in when you have taken your pension to avoid recycling.
No, the private pension limit tapers at a 50% rate from £240k upwards. It's one of the things consultants moan about.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Come on, the consistent defence of the establishment wrong-doers by certain posters on here is silly.
Is there a non zero chance it never happened sure. Is it very likely, based on the evidence in the public domain, that it happened, yes, at the least very likely.
That's what I'm trying to get to: what actual evidence *is* in the public domain? You provide none, but it's a fair question. What do you base your conclusion that it 'at least very likely' happened?
Just the book? The reporting on the book?
Along with a repeated non denial, yes. “He hit me many times, over many years.”
See my later post. If he denied it, are you honestly telling me you'd believe the denial? Really?
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
Again, it happened. No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here ot n
The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
If my wife was awake she would be able to tell me the current price at Hawes (community ran not for profit petrol station that does hsave the rural tax discount but that really only reflects the extra delivery costs).
Think its £1.45 a litre of diesel though so that shows the profits being made...
In the south I have seen derv at 1.75.9 and 1. 90 on motorway service stations. We are all being royally ripped off but then was it ever thus. Eg... A yr ago a 2 quid bottle of heinz tomato ketchup in tesco is now 4 quid. They are all taking the piss.
There is an element of taking the piss, of course there is. But two things are happening here:
1. Real world inflation on specific items and classes of thing is significantly higher than headline inflation. There is a wish - politically driven usually - to talk down inflation. I get that. But wishing doesn't make it reality, and commodity prices for stuff like tomatoes are sky high. So the material price inflation continues to shoot upwards, compounding previous increases. 2. The ability of sellers to subsidise below-average profit margin lines has been reduced. Two of the big four supermarkets are in massive shit due to their levered PE buyout. All have been clobbered by enormous energy cost inflation in both electricity and diesel. They used to flog things like road fuel at a price disconnected with wholesale to be competitive - they're no longer able / willing to do that.
So "the piss" starts with a belief that prices are falling when they are not, and that market-derived competition can be continued at the previous rate. Neither are true. If the inflation rate of some staples is easing back into the high teens percent from the 40-50% they have been at, the price is still rising. We will never again see a £2 bottle of Ketchup, at least not one of the same size / quality.
The base will love it. RDS knows exactly what he's doing.
That part of 'the base' might well stick with Trump. So far the mini me hasn't yet managed to differentiate himself much. And every move in a Trumpite direction makes him look less like the grownup alternative.
Having said that, having Florida in the bag gives him a chance. It would be amusing if it comes down to solidly Democratic California to choose which arse cheek gets the nomination.
I assume his pitch is that he is like Trump in every important way except he's got a better chance of winning.
Not sure though how he makes that case when most of them believe Trump won last time and only lost due to fraud.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Although you can only pay in £4k a year without paying tax on it twice.
I think you mean £40k?
Yep and you can use the previous 2 years allowance also. The 4k comes in when you have taken your pension to avoid recycling.
No above a certain income threshold, think it's about £150k, you can only pay in £4k tax free. That means if you are taxed at 45% on the way in and 40% on the way out then you face an effective tax rate of 67% on income paid in and taken in retirement. And the government says it wants to encourage retirement savings! Another piece of Osborne era idiocy.
The government should certainly be encouraging pension savings amongst those who would otherwise be reliant on the state.
Should it also be encouraging pension savings on those who might earn £5m+ over a lifetime? Probably not to the same extent at all.
Comments
However, I'm sure the thread is excellent and good luck to those who do bet.
As sanctions have been ramped up to choke Russia’s war efforts, one high tech American manufacturer may be flouting export controls.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1635772354402869249
So we're out.
But don't worry all, the risk to their impartiality is definitely Gary Crispbag and not the Tory stooges implanted to do the bidding of Number 10
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/14/bbc-editors-asked-journalists-to-avoid-using-lockdown-at-start-of-pandemic?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
In particular it will be interesting to see Hunt claim that the finances are better, and inflation tamed, yet public sector workers deserve real terms pay cuts.
Not a surprise, but officially confirmed now.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
20 years on from the invasion of Iraq, Rory speaks to Alastair about the build up, aftermath, and legacy of the event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7xQ8PnybcM
(other podcast platforms are available)
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraines-future-is-not-important-for-america-says-ron-desantis-w5q73rsjj
The Metropolitan Police is planning to spend £440,000 on mounting certificates and picture frames in what it said was an important measure to maintain morale.
The Met said the framing initiative was a way to “recognise and reward” more than 44,000 officers and staff for their bravery in the line of duty, “innovative instigations”, long service, and for those retiring. The force has advertised for companies to bid for a contract to supply and deliver picture frames and certificates for its “employee recognition programme”. The contract would last for four years.
The move comes despite complaints by Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner, that the Met is struggling financially.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/met-police-picture-frames-mark-rowley-chief-2023-zzl67lzvq
And I'm not sure even the latter would call a full blown armed invasion 'a territorial dispute'.
It was a silly question, really...
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
I’m sure Hunt will avoid doing anything that can see the budget unravel within days .
His primary goal is to ensure there are no opposition attack openings .
The childcare favours those earning under 100,000 so ticks the we’re not just for the wealthy box !
The pensions policy will be sloganized as helping with doctor retention , and the threshold is just back to where it was when Labour left office .
In another time, Chamberlain might indeed have been remembered as a decent PM.
Rolling back the requirements will, he thinks, result in a period of low growth in the US as banks will have to basically stop writing loans for a while.
British customers of the world's biggest cryptocurrency exchange face being unable to withdraw their money from the platform within months.
Binance has been forced to suspend withdrawals to British bank accounts following pressure from regulators on the cryptocurrency giant’s payment provider.
Paysafe said that the regulatory environment made it “too challenging” to process payments for the business and would shut it off in May.
Binance told customers this week that Paysafe would no longer handle card transactions and bank transfers in sterling from May 22. It has suspended the services for new users from Monday.
The move will effectively leave no way for customers in Britain to withdraw pounds from the platform to their bank accounts after that date, although it is understood that the companies are working on a way to keep some payments flowing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2023/03/14/binance-suspends-sterling-transfers-following-crypto-crackdown0/
That does of course mean the opprobrium heaped on Chamberlain would be heaped on Gilmour, Inskip or Cunliffe-Lister instead.
Hence the dilemma of regulation and deregulation. It's not hard to get faster growth by relaxing rules, but the fewer rules, the more and worse occasional explosions. Which have a horrible aftereffect on growth-see 2008.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
And banks are in any event likely to raise the cost of borrowing.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I think SVB was in an exceptional situation for reasons I have set out before. It had an unusually solvent customer base with large deposits held by relatively fewer players who were going to be more mobile when the crunch came.
As unexciting as it would be for the rest of us, public sector pay should be right at the top of the Chancellors priorities.
@RonDeSantisFL over Ukraine.
WICKER: “I completely disagree with his comments.”
CRAMER: “it’s in our interest”
GRAHAM: “This is a war of aggression”
RUBIO: “he doesn’t deal with foreign policy every day”
THUNE: “I have a different view on that than he does.”
TUBERVILLE: “They’re a vital interest. We’re basically protecting NATO and Europe.”
KENNEDY: “I’ve looked at it as self-preservation.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1635816487490289665
It's the philosophical knot at the heart of the current model of Conservatism... Is it perhaps driven by the pensioner domination, 100k seems like an absurdly huge amount of salary?
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in#tool-results-section
(1) a continuation and extension of the super reliefs for capital spending (and ideally training as well). We have an urgent need to have an investment boom in this country.
(2) Pension reforms so that doctors with over £1m in their pension funds do not feel a burning need to go and spend more time with their money.
(3) some relaxation of budgetary constraints so that the wave of public sector strikes can be settled.
(4) A clear path to reduced borrowing over the medium term.
(5) A clear commitment to sorting out the National Insurance mess and the consolidation of NI into IT so that all income is taxed at the same rate for everyone regardless of age.
(6) A commitment to tax simplification.
(7) More investment in essential infrastructure.
(8) A focus on education at all levels but with the promised training/education right to encourage life term learning.
We need to boost investment, improve productivity, increase real wages and reduce our balance of payments deficit. It is a very difficult circle to square.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
Why are Rishi Sunak's personal ratings struggling to revive Tory electoral fortunes? (Part one)
Sunak's ratings are significantly better than either of his predecessors. But the party continues to languish in the polls. Digging deeper into the polling reveals some possible reasons why.
https://beyondthetopline.substack.com/p/why-are-rishi-sunaks-personal-ratings?sd=pf
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
And every move in a Trumpite direction makes him look less like the grownup alternative.
Having said that, having Florida in the bag gives him a chance.
It would be amusing if it comes down to solidly Democratic California to choose which arse cheek gets the nomination.
What is needed is people to be able to withdraw from making contributions and accumulating pension years so they don't attract a punitive tax liability on marginal income. That would solve the Doctor issue on pensions and also be fair.
Whatever you think about the wealthy/ very well of, it's stupid policy.
Think its £1.45 a litre of diesel though so that shows the profits being made...
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Under the current system in this country it is a hard path trying to build up wealth by way of getting a job and then save up money from it. You need to either inherit wealth, own a business, or acquire assets that rise in value faster than inflation (ie housing).
That said, if you do earn over £100k, it isn't too difficult to become wealthy by investing in a private pension. It is only if you have high monthly overheads when the problems start to kick in.
Is there a non zero chance it never happened sure. Is it very likely, based on the evidence in the public domain, that it happened, yes, at the least very likely.
One of the trends we are seeing out here in the sandpit, is more families settling here, often for a decade or more. Whereas it used to be a much more transient population of mostly young singles, rather than people in their 40s. Stuff like 70% marginal tax rates at £100k encourages such emigration of the top 10%.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Just the book? The reporting on the book?
Did Trump no harm.
Ronald Reagan will be spinning in his grave. His Party, sucking the teat of the Evil Empire....
Being charitable perhaps they don't realise just how rich the USA still is and thus how cost effective support for Ukraine is.
https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/combined-marginal-rates-income-tax-and-national-insurance-contributions?tab=tab-594
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good...
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
Again, it happened. No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here ot n There is an element of taking the piss, of course there is. But two things are happening here:
1. Real world inflation on specific items and classes of thing is significantly higher than headline inflation. There is a wish - politically driven usually - to talk down inflation. I get that. But wishing doesn't make it reality, and commodity prices for stuff like tomatoes are sky high. So the material price inflation continues to shoot upwards, compounding previous increases.
2. The ability of sellers to subsidise below-average profit margin lines has been reduced. Two of the big four supermarkets are in massive shit due to their levered PE buyout. All have been clobbered by enormous energy cost inflation in both electricity and diesel. They used to flog things like road fuel at a price disconnected with wholesale to be competitive - they're no longer able / willing to do that.
So "the piss" starts with a belief that prices are falling when they are not, and that market-derived competition can be continued at the previous rate. Neither are true. If the inflation rate of some staples is easing back into the high teens percent from the 40-50% they have been at, the price is still rising. We will never again see a £2 bottle of Ketchup, at least not one of the same size / quality.
Not sure though how he makes that case when most of them believe Trump won last time and only lost due to fraud.
Should it also be encouraging pension savings on those who might earn £5m+ over a lifetime? Probably not to the same extent at all.