Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The voters say I can’t get no satisfaction with the Tories – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,793
edited September 2023 in General
The voteres say I can’t get no satisfaction with the Tories – politicalbetting.com

How would British voters feel if the Conservative Party or the Labour Party were to win the next General Election? (3 September)Net Satisfaction if…Labour win: +27% (+7)The Conservatives win: -5% (+4)Changes +/- 27 August pic.twitter.com/Xa8NISFSLz

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    First, like Labour
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    Qui sont les 'voteres'?
  • Options
    TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,799
    Curse of the new thread (so off topic straight away!):

    Cyclefree said:

    MattW said:

    Speaking of grifters and brass neck, this is an interesting little thread:

    The road you can see below is Henry Drive in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex.

    It's a typical seaside town, not far from Southend.

    Except since 8 June 2023, seventy new companies have been registered to seventeen different addresses in this road.

    https://twitter.com/greybrow53/status/1700426422941106265

    What's the point I wonder? I vaguely read the thread but I don't know what the 'scam' here is?
    Attempts to obtain government support and then just running off with the money (leaving an unaware householder to pick up the pieces)?

    There are two points:-

    1. Companies House does very few checks and verifications when new companies are registered. This makes it very quick and easy to set up companies but it also makes it very easy for fraudsters of all types and this has been criticised by many. There is a case for increasing the checks without hampering business.

    2. This sort of pattern in private houses suggests a scam which can affect the householders living there, as well as others affected by those operating these companies.
    Tell me about it.

    1. It's £12 to set up. No checks, nothing. If you get the Company Authentication code, you can basically do what you like.
    2. If *I* received post about a new company, I'd take great delight in changing everything straight away, but for the average joe on the street, they'd either ignore it, or start the exceptionally slow process of trying to get the Company removed properly (take years).

    Companies House is a chocolate fireguard. In fact, its worse than that, as the fireguard would last a few minutes. There is basically no guard at all.
    Jobsworthism. It’s not in the remit of Companies House to do checks, therefore they don’t.

    Perhaps they need a team meeting to work out what they do?
    Well, in Companies House defence, they do say they are merely a record keeper and its up to the individual to do their own due diligence.

    However, its also a criminal offence to file incorrect information (for which no one prosecutes, or even investigates) so it then means that third parties suddenly place 'reliance' on this information.
    Before you know where you are, you've created a fictitious web of 'reputable companies' with a history of filing and give off the air of upstanding business people. Banks will loan you money, companies will send you stock, all with no further checks on their part.

    Everyone's a winner, especially Companies House who get all those lovely £12 incorporation and £13 confirmation statement fees for over 10 million companies.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,462

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Utter bollox , tax older people twice o give to a bunch of greedy lazy shysters too dumb to go out and earn their own money. GIRUY you fruitbut. Hopefully you are never ever in charge of developing anything other than a photograph.
  • Options

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    I think that’s too obvious and sets up conflict

    I would rather put a general annual residential property tax on and split the proceeds (roughly):

    1/3 eliminate council tax related centrally mandated spending and stamp duty
    1/3 deficit reduction
    1/3 reduction in NIC / other employment hindering taxes
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    27% satisfied with a Labour victory, given present circumstances? Always nice when the public is full of satisfaction for your cause.

    Good afternoon, everybody.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,108
    Last evening on Jeju.

  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    The latest episode of Radio 4’s More or Less discussed, as its last item, Grant Shapps’ (inaccurate) claims about the environmental cost of importing gas over using our own North Sea gas. Posters like @BartholomewRoberts , who make similar points, may be interested.

    In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Topical header given the overrated rockers are releasing a new LP.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
  • Options

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
  • Options

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Steadily raising income tax would be a pretty good way of making the change.

    Employers NI really should be killed off as well as that is effectively paid by the worker, the problem being that the worker doesn't realise they are paying it as it tends to not appear on payslips.
  • Options
    Crypto hyper inflation is even impacting jail sentences now.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66752785
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,108

    The latest episode of Radio 4’s More or Less discussed, as its last item, Grant Shapps’ (inaccurate) claims about the environmental cost of importing gas over using our own North Sea gas. Posters like @BartholomewRoberts , who make similar points, may be interested.

    In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.

    Shapes is one if the government's more accomplished bullshitters.
    (Accomplished only in that respect.)
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,298
    edited September 2023

    The latest episode of Radio 4’s More or Less discussed, as its last item, Grant Shapps’ (inaccurate) claims about the environmental cost of importing gas over using our own North Sea gas. Posters like @BartholomewRoberts , who make similar points, may be interested.

    In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.

    If you have any evidence that can be discussed, in writing, with numbers, then I'd be curious to see it. Have no inclination to go through BBC radio archives.

    However the fact that imported gas has an environmental impact just like domestic gas does is not twisting anything.

    The reasons given why we should eliminate imports before domestic production are primarily to do with security and economic reasons over environmental, while still fulfilling the environmental initiative of transitioning to net zero.
  • Options

    The latest episode of Radio 4’s More or Less discussed, as its last item, Grant Shapps’ (inaccurate) claims about the environmental cost of importing gas over using our own North Sea gas. Posters like @BartholomewRoberts , who make similar points, may be interested.

    In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.

    If you have any evidence that can be discussed, in writing, with numbers, then I'd be curious to see it. Have no inclination to go through BBC radio archives.

    However the fact that imported gas has an environmental impact just like domestic gas does is not twisting anything.

    The reasons given why we should eliminate imports before domestic production are primarily to do with security and economic reasons over environmental, while still fulfilling the environmental initiative of transitioning to net zero.
    To help reduce reliance on imported gas...

    ...the government is supporting the development of new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Steadily raising income tax would be a pretty good way of making the change.

    Employers NI really should be killed off as well as that is effectively paid by the worker, the problem being that the worker doesn't realise they are paying it as it tends to not appear on payslips.
    I can see the argument for killing employer's NI but if you think removing it would result in a corresponding (13.8%) increase in pay for employees you're having a laugh. Plus, just removing it would leave a big unplugged hole in government receipts.

    Rolling it into corporation tax wouldn't work as that's a tax on profit. Maybe a turnover tax would work or increase VAT to cover the shortfall?
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    The latest episode of Radio 4’s More or Less discussed, as its last item, Grant Shapps’ (inaccurate) claims about the environmental cost of importing gas over using our own North Sea gas. Posters like @BartholomewRoberts , who make similar points, may be interested.

    In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.

    Shapes is one if the government's more accomplished bullshitters.
    (Accomplished only in that respect.)
    He shall be henceforth known as the Shapeshitter.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938

    Crypto hyper inflation is even impacting jail sentences now.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66752785

    Is that real years or Bityears?
  • Options
    TimS said:

    AnneJGP said:

    27% satisfied with a Labour victory, given present circumstances? Always nice when the public is full of satisfaction for your cause.

    Good afternoon, everybody.

    Net satisfaction. Those satisfied minus those dissatisfied. That’s a pretty big score.
    If only we could get all of those saying Satisfied to go out and vote Labour we'd be home and hosed.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,197

    Crypto hyper inflation is even impacting jail sentences now.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66752785

    What a lenient sentence. With good behaviour he’ll be out in 5,000 years.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,848

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Steadily raising income tax would be a pretty good way of making the change.

    Employers NI really should be killed off as well as that is effectively paid by the worker, the problem being that the worker doesn't realise they are paying it as it tends to not appear on payslips.
    I can see the argument for killing employer's NI but if you think removing it would result in a corresponding (13.8%) increase in pay for employees you're having a laugh. Plus, just removing it would leave a big unplugged hole in government receipts.

    Rolling it into corporation tax wouldn't work as that's a tax on profit. Maybe a turnover tax would work or increase VAT to cover the shortfall?
    Employer NI is worth approximately £60bn a year - exactly where else can the Govenment get that amount of money from...
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641

    The latest episode of Radio 4’s More or Less discussed, as its last item, Grant Shapps’ (inaccurate) claims about the environmental cost of importing gas over using our own North Sea gas. Posters like @BartholomewRoberts , who make similar points, may be interested.

    In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.

    If you have any evidence that can be discussed, in writing, with numbers, then I'd be curious to see it. Have no inclination to go through BBC radio archives.

    However the fact that imported gas has an environmental impact just like domestic gas does is not twisting anything.

    The reasons given why we should eliminate imports before domestic production are primarily to do with security and economic reasons over environmental, while still fulfilling the environmental initiative of transitioning to net zero.
    To summarise… Shapps said the environmental cost of imported LNG makes it four times worse than UK gas. If you do the maths properly, it’s actually more like three times worse, but, yes, the environmental cost of transporting LNG is higher. Except that Shapps didn’t distinguish between the cost of processing/transporting the gas and the cost of burning the gas. The latter is much greater, so if you take that into account, the difference between UK gas and LNG imports looks much less impressive (16%, not 400%).

    But, yes, 16% or 400%, LNG is still worse. Except most UK imported gas is down a pipeline from Norway, not LNG, and the Norwegian gas has lower environmental costs than our own North Sea gas. Shapps was clear he was making a comparison with LNG; a subsequent Govt statement confounds the error by confusing LNG with all UK imports.

    On environmental grounds, we should be just importing the Norwegian gas and shutting down North Sea production. The programme did not discuss the security implications of buying gas from an unstable and undemocratic regime like Norway.

    Go to 19:50 at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001q66q if you’re interested. If you’re not interested, feel free to spend your Sunday afternoon in some other manner.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,848

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    Predictions for Scotland V The Boks?

    I’d love to patriotically support my fellow Brits up north and assert their chances, but I don’t think they have that much chance. Boks looking too good

    Scotland 16
    SA 27
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Predictions for Scotland V The Boks?

    I’d love to patriotically support my fellow Brits up north and assert their chances, but I don’t think they have that much chance. Boks looking too good

    Scotland 16
    SA 27

    80 minutes of reset scrums and kick & clap.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    edited September 2023
    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Steadily raising income tax would be a pretty good way of making the change.

    Employers NI really should be killed off as well as that is effectively paid by the worker, the problem being that the worker doesn't realise they are paying it as it tends to not appear on payslips.
    I can see the argument for killing employer's NI but if you think removing it would result in a corresponding (13.8%) increase in pay for employees you're having a laugh. Plus, just removing it would leave a big unplugged hole in government receipts.

    Rolling it into corporation tax wouldn't work as that's a tax on profit. Maybe a turnover tax would work or increase VAT to cover the shortfall?
    Employer NI is worth approximately £60bn a year - exactly where else can the Govenment get that amount of money from...
    Indeed. Raising VAT to 27.5% would recover that. That's not going to help Sunak's inflation target
    though ;-)
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Because we all benefit from a well educated population.

    (Though much university education should be better).
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047

    Leon said:

    Predictions for Scotland V The Boks?

    I’d love to patriotically support my fellow Brits up north and assert their chances, but I don’t think they have that much chance. Boks looking too good

    Scotland 16
    SA 27

    80 minutes of reset scrums and kick & clap.
    When is the world rugby league cup again, with its exciting two nation format, staged in a playing field just outside Wigan?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Indeed, just have a sliding scale of fees so that those who go to the top universities and study law, economics, medicine etc and will earn the most pay the most
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    A ban is definitely coming - there are now Tory MPs on TwitterX calling for it. And many others



    The question is how many pets and children will need to die before the government finally yields to the inevitable, and how much damage this utterly craven government will do to itself as it delays, pointlessly
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited September 2023

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.

    National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be
    increased to
    £2 million instead so older
    people can ultimately pass on
    more of their assets to their
    children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Indeed, just have a sliding scale of fees so that those who go to the top universities and study law, economics, medicine etc and will earn the most pay the most
    If people earn more, they’ll pay more anyway through income tax.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,686
    Nigelb said:

    Last evening on Jeju.

    I hope you visited Haesindang Park! My wife and I went there about 10 years ago before we got married, quite the experience. People watching young Koreans looking to get their marriage blessed was interesting to say the least.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    edited September 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    She.

    I suppose the other question though in light of the way you've framed your own views is, what use is extra money to a dead man?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    She.

    I suppose the other question though is, what use is extra money to a dead man?
    Well he might have had an easier time throughout his life, a little extra money to raise his family, pay his rent etc. Chances are he is having the heart attack after retiring. The surgeon that saves his life is getting well compensated via his pay already and will have a much easier life throughout than that dustman. You are just demanding he gets an even easier life
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    edited September 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    As I pointed out the career average for graduates is however only 36k so 10 years of working life paying tax is basically voided just to cover the education they received. Sorry don't regard that as a good deal for non graduates
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,280
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    She.

    I suppose the other question though is, what use is extra money to a dead man?
    Well he might have had an easier time throughout his life, a little extra money to raise his family, pay his rent etc. Chances are he is having the heart attack after retiring. The surgeon that saves his life is getting well compensated via his pay already and will have a much easier life throughout than that dustman. You are just demanding he gets an even easier life
    She, again. Not he. It was a woman giving that reply.

    As for heart attack after he retired, do you honestly not realise how many people have heart attacks in their forties?

    It has to be said you're also making the rather patronising assumption that only middle-class people go to university. That's increasingly true, partly because of tuition fees putting off people from poorer backgrounds. But do we really want only to have doctors from posh schools like Eton and Clifton where the pupils come out with a zillion good exam results and the intellect of stuffed donkeys?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    She.

    I suppose the other question though is, what use is extra money to a dead man?
    Well he might have had an easier time throughout his life, a little extra money to raise his family, pay his rent etc. Chances are he is having the heart attack after retiring. The surgeon that saves his life is getting well compensated via his pay already and will have a much easier life throughout than that dustman. You are just demanding he gets an even easier life
    She, again. Not he. It was a woman giving that reply.

    As for heart attack after he retired, do you honestly not realise how many people have heart attacks in their forties?

    It has to be said you're also making the rather patronising assumption that only middle-class people go to university. That's increasingly true, partly because of tuition fees putting off people from poorer backgrounds. But do we really want only to have doctors from posh schools like Eton and Clifton where the pupils come out with a zillion good exam results and the intellect of stuffed donkeys?
    I am not making a patronizing assumption because the stats show the poorer your upbringing the less likely you are to go to university. Those from the lowest decile are 30% less likely to attend than those from the top deciles
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529
    I don’t think many countries in history have underperformed economically because people were too educated.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,003
    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,462
    Foxy said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Because we all benefit from a well educated population.

    (Though much university education should be better).
    Good chunk of it is wasted on shit degrees where they end up serving coffee or pints. University is out of control, just another gravy train for Tories and their pals. They should be severely restricted and get more technical colleges for theskills we really need.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,848

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    Not me - i was merely pointing out the massive flaw in @BartholomewRoberts idea...
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,641
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    As I pointed out the career average for graduates is however only 36k so 10 years of working life paying tax is basically voided just to cover the education they received. Sorry don't regard that as a good deal for non graduates
    How would you feel about more subsidy for some courses than others?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    edited September 2023
    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Because we all benefit from a well educated population.

    (Though much university education should be better).
    Good chunk of it is wasted on shit degrees where they end up serving coffee or pints. University is out of control, just another gravy train for Tories and their pals. They should be severely restricted and get more technical colleges for theskills we really need.

    Well we have hardly benefitted from the massive expansion of Uni places over the last 15 years or so.

    The economy is poor and productivity is low.

    There is also the massive hole in the Uni Lecturers pension scheme. That needs filling.
  • Options

    The latest episode of Radio 4’s More or Less discussed, as its last item, Grant Shapps’ (inaccurate) claims about the environmental cost of importing gas over using our own North Sea gas. Posters like @BartholomewRoberts , who make similar points, may be interested.

    In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.

    If you have any evidence that can be discussed, in writing, with numbers, then I'd be curious to see it. Have no inclination to go through BBC radio archives.

    However the fact that imported gas has an environmental impact just like domestic gas does is not twisting anything.

    The reasons given why we should eliminate imports before domestic production are primarily to do with security and economic reasons over environmental, while still fulfilling the environmental initiative of transitioning to net zero.
    To summarise… Shapps said the environmental cost of imported LNG makes it four times worse than UK gas. If you do the maths properly, it’s actually more like three times worse, but, yes, the environmental cost of transporting LNG is higher. Except that Shapps didn’t distinguish between the cost of processing/transporting the gas and the cost of burning the gas. The latter is much greater, so if you take that into account, the difference between UK gas and LNG imports looks much less impressive (16%, not 400%).

    But, yes, 16% or 400%, LNG is still worse. Except most UK imported gas is down a pipeline from Norway, not LNG, and the Norwegian gas has lower environmental costs than our own North Sea gas. Shapps was clear he was making a comparison with LNG; a subsequent Govt statement confounds the error by confusing LNG with all UK imports.

    On environmental grounds, we should be just importing the Norwegian gas and shutting down North Sea production. The programme did not discuss the security implications of buying gas from an unstable and undemocratic regime like Norway.

    Go to 19:50 at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001q66q if you’re interested. If you’re not interested, feel free to spend your Sunday afternoon in some other manner.
    That all seems rather to confirm the environmental drawbacks of drawing additional supply from LNG cargoes (which is what's happening) vs. doing what we can to increase domestic supply. Afaik imports from Norway are relatively static; it is the two other categories which have been more dynamic. I would also be interested in hearing why the Norwegians are able to supply gas with a lower carbon cost - is it because their industry is more developed and benefits from economies of scale? It may be that the answer to that question calls for greater development in the North Sea not less.

    Frankly, it's still quite bizarre to hear the espousal of a shut down of domestic energy supply during an energy crisis. Posters like Bondegezou may get tumescent at the idea of Britain collapsing, but you'd think they might have the modesty to hide it somewhat.

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,460
    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    I first heard about these when a friend of mine got a crossbreed that includes this type and he said he couldn't get insurance. But something tells me that most of the people getting these won't be worrying about insurance.
  • Options
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    Not me - i was merely pointing out the massive flaw in @BartholomewRoberts idea...
    It's also a bit misleading because the thresholds are so different. Income tax kicks in at £12570, whereas undergraduate Student Loan repayments start at various levels in the range £22015 to £27660.

    From the briefing done by the House of Commons Library;

    Median students pay back £30000 or so, which is roughly the cost of their fees anyway. Graduates who go on to make a fortune pay more, and those who take low-paid jobs pay less.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/student-finance-in-england-impact-of-lowering-the-repayment-threshold

    The overall effect of the recent changes (lower interest, longer repayment term, lower threshold) are pretty horrid for lower paid graduates;

    https://ifs.org.uk/articles/sweeping-changes-student-loans-hit-tomorrows-lower-earning-graduates

    As with anything fiscal, ignore the patter, watch the hands.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    Bear with me just done some calculations.....

    Sources

    Income tax calculations here https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/
    Average graduate vs non grad salaries here https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191970/annual-salary-of-graduates-in-england/

    So lets assume 40 working years

    our grad makes 460k more than the non grad
    our grad in that time pays a total of 7913 a year income tax and ni = 316520 tax over 40 years

    or non grad in that time pays a total of 3966 a year income tax and ni = 158640 tax over 40 years

    So the grad pays 157880 more tax....now subtract the course fees and maintenance grant from that estimated 60k (source about how much my son owed) so in total then a graduate pays an extra 98k in tax over a working life. On the other hand they get a bonus of extra pay of 460k - 98k of 362k.

    Now call me insane here but in my view the graduate is getting the best of that deal if we made uni free so I don't see why the dustman (the one i was referring to as he as there are few female dustmen) in the hypothetical question might not think that the one getting the most benefit should be the one that pays.

    Now if you were to argue the percentage interest is too high I would agree with you. Should be no higher than the base rate. But it is clear that the main beneficiary is the graduate not the country
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    As I pointed out the career average for graduates is however only 36k so 10 years of working life paying tax is basically voided just to cover the education they received. Sorry don't regard that as a good deal for non graduates
    How would you feel about more subsidy for some courses than others?
    For things like doctors and nurses sure but only if its based on years worked in the nhs and not swanning off to australie. I would probably go for 10% debt forgiveness for full year worked. That means a full week.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    So if Bully XL dogs went to private school followed by a Russell Group University, would they be less dangerous to society?
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,598

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    So if Bully XL dogs went to private school followed by a Russell Group University, would they be less dangerous to society?
    As long as they didn’t join the Bullyngdon club at university then yes.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517
    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    So if Bully XL dogs went to private school followed by a Russell Group University, would they be less dangerous to society?
    As long as they didn’t join the Bullyngdon club at university then yes.
    So private education for dogs. Excellent. Someone call Sir Kid Starver, we have a new policy.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    edited September 2023
    tlg86 said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    I first heard about these when a friend of mine got a crossbreed that includes this type and he said he couldn't get insurance. But something tells me that most of the people getting these won't be worrying about insurance.
    Very probably. The RSPCAs own insurance won’t cover these. The video from Birmingham is awful. I know little of these dogs but that one was a brute. All muscle.incredibly powerful jaw.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    C'mon Scotland!

    (tho I fear the worst)
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    edited September 2023
    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.

    The roofer in that article just looks like the sort of person who’d have one of these dogs.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,342
    edited September 2023

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Leon said:

    C'mon Scotland!

    (tho I fear the worst)

    WTF are the Saffers wearing ? Dreadful kit.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    As I pointed out the career average for graduates is however only 36k so 10 years of working life paying tax is basically voided just to cover the education they received. Sorry don't regard that as a good deal for non graduates
    How would you feel about more subsidy for some courses than others?
    For things like doctors and nurses sure but only if its based on years worked in the nhs and not swanning off to australie. I would probably go for 10% debt forgiveness for full year worked. That means a full week.
    Various private companies do the following for expensive vocational courses -

    1) Interest free loan to the person.
    2) Repaid by working x years.
    3) The repayments are typically loaded to latest years - I've seen 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 2/6

    It's not hard to imagine adapting this to medical staff - the interest on the loan is zero'd while working in the NHS, and the repayments made on their behalf.

    So while working in the NHS, the student loans go away *immediately*, and only come back if they quit before they are fully repaid.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    It really does. They are now getting a lot of stick on social media, and rightly

    Polls show the public approve a ban about 3 to 1, and that will only grow with awareness, and the endless supply of horrifying videos

    I fully expect to see a video of one killing a child, soon enough, unless something is done ASAP. It is inevitable. We are basically allowing people to walk the streets with psychotic leopards - on steroids
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,595
    HYUFD said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.

    National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be
    increased to
    £2 million instead so older
    people can ultimately pass on
    more of their assets to their
    children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
    As long as the rate is 100% above £2 million I see no real problem with your proposal.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,598

    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    So if Bully XL dogs went to private school followed by a Russell Group University, would they be less dangerous to society?
    As long as they didn’t join the Bullyngdon club at university then yes.
    So private education for dogs. Excellent. Someone call Sir Kid Starver, we have a new policy.
    They could go to St Pawls or Puppingham.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    So if Bully XL dogs went to private school followed by a Russell Group University, would they be less dangerous to society?
    As long as they didn’t join the Bullyngdon club at university then yes.
    So private education for dogs. Excellent. Someone call Sir Kid Starver, we have a new policy.
    Given the cost of vet's fees, it wouldn't add much to the cost of having a pooch. No NHS for animals, though one could always try charity (PDSA and Dog Aid Society).

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/07/rise-in-chain-owned-vet-surgeries-in-uk-prompts-cma-review
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/08/they-have-you-over-a-barrel-the-uk-pet-owners-facing-staggering-vet-bills
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    Bollocks

    The government was about to announce a ban and then the RSPCA intervened and started a letter-writing campaign and the government lost its nerve, pathetically

    Bans work. We know this. Australia bans them. Ontatrio bans them. These places are not suffering sudden spikes in dog deaths

    Australia has a blanket ban which just says "any dogs with characteristics resembling pit bulls" etc etc. Total ban, totally effective

    Why are you on the side of the evil Satan dogs which eat children?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    The simple fact is a lot of jobs now demand a degree in the advert that never used to. I remain unconvinced they really need a degree when they didnt in the past. All it has done in effect is to close off jobs for non graduates
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871
    edited September 2023
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    Bollocks

    The government was about to announce a ban and then the RSPCA intervened and started a letter-writing campaign and the government lost its nerve, pathetically

    Bans work. We know this. Australia bans them. Ontatrio bans them. These places are not suffering sudden spikes in dog deaths

    Australia has a blanket ban which just says "any dogs with characteristics resembling pit bulls" etc etc. Total ban, totally effective

    Why are you on the side of the evil Satan dogs which eat children?
    I'm not. But there is no point in passing laws which don't function. It only makes the problem worse.

    As noted by others on PB, the DDA is a classic of how not to do it.

    Edit: that Australian law is purely descriptive/empirical. It's not breed based (if I read you rightly). Yet a lot of the current panic is specific to the breed.
  • Options
    Several things are true at once.

    The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.

    Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.

    A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.

    The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.



  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    An expert view

    "As a barrister who has worked on dangerous dog cases, we need much tougher penalties for irresponsible owners, restrictions on dog breeders and, most importantly, a ban on XL bullies. The statistics are overwhelming, these dogs are too big and too aggressive to be family pets."

    https://twitter.com/DouglasLloydUK/status/1700745991995961400?s=20


    And a thorough explanation as to why these bans are needed and why they will work against Bully XLs

    "Just how dangerous is the American Bully?

    Is this an isolated incident?

    I've been focused on this issue for months and here's what we know about the most dangerous dog breed in British history 🧵👇"

    https://twitter.com/pursuitofprog/status/1700746239363465423?s=20

    Sample:

    "But it's not just deaths, the American Bully leads in attacks.

    This includes both humans and pets.

    Doctors are seeing horrifying injuries, mostly on children.

    Vets are seeing dogs ripped apart. One week in July this year, one dog a day was killed by an American Bully."
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    TBH it is what I have seen reported. It’s an emotive subject and you may well be right and their view is more nuanced than reported in a clickbait article on social media.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    Taz said:

    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    TBH it is what I have seen reported. It’s an emotive subject and you may well be right and their view is more nuanced than reported in a clickbait article on social media.
    No, read this thread

    "So what's stopping [a ban]?

    There is a HUGE lobby, led by the
    @RSPCA_official
    , which advocates against ANY BANS.

    Worse than just stopping a ban on the Bully, they advocate for a removal of all breed bans. Meaning a return of the Pitbull and the bred-for-slave-hunting Brasileiro."

    https://twitter.com/pursuitofprog/status/1700746336872604097?s=20
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871
    Taz said:

    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    TBH it is what I have seen reported. It’s an emotive subject and you may well be right and their view is more nuanced than reported in a clickbait article on social media.
    FWIW I think it's absolutely insane to own one of the things (or indeed a pit bull or even bulldog) - just too risky, even if utterly amiable and well socialised, as they might be frightened by something out of one's control. As for deliberate training ...!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    edited September 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    Bollocks

    The government was about to announce a ban and then the RSPCA intervened and started a letter-writing campaign and the government lost its nerve, pathetically

    Bans work. We know this. Australia bans them. Ontatrio bans them. These places are not suffering sudden spikes in dog deaths

    Australia has a blanket ban which just says "any dogs with characteristics resembling pit bulls" etc etc. Total ban, totally effective

    Why are you on the side of the evil Satan dogs which eat children?
    I'm not. But there is no point in passing laws which don't function. It only makes the problem worse.

    As noted by others on PB, the DDA is a classic of how not to do it.

    Edit: that Australian law is purely descriptive/empirical. It's not breed based (if I read you rightly). Yet a lot of the current panic is specific to the breed.
    So use the Australian method. Ban all dogs that look like this. Job done

    Or do you want more kids to die?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517
    Carnyx said:

    boulay said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    Oh God! You do know you have just set HY off on a trail that will lead us to Russell Group Universities, the superior benefits of private education and grammar schools.
    So if Bully XL dogs went to private school followed by a Russell Group University, would they be less dangerous to society?
    As long as they didn’t join the Bullyngdon club at university then yes.
    So private education for dogs. Excellent. Someone call Sir Kid Starver, we have a new policy.
    Given the cost of vet's fees, it wouldn't add much to the cost of having a pooch. No NHS for animals, though one could always try charity (PDSA and Dog Aid Society).

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/07/rise-in-chain-owned-vet-surgeries-in-uk-prompts-cma-review
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/08/they-have-you-over-a-barrel-the-uk-pet-owners-facing-staggering-vet-bills
    One thing that we can borrow from other countries is sending NHS patients a bill, marked paid.

    I’ve had some interesting conversations with pet owners, who think that the costs of treatment are mad. When you ask them how much an X-ray costs the NHS (and the cost of an animal X-ray shouldn’t be much different) some become thoughtful….
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Pagan2 said:

    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    The simple fact is a lot of jobs now demand a degree in the advert that never used to. I remain unconvinced they really need a degree when they didnt in the past. All it has done in effect is to close off jobs for non graduates
    To get a job at Land Rover, certainly for technical roles, you need a degree. Previously HNC/HND would be fine. A contractor doesn’t need one but a permie does. Why ? It makes little sense really.

    To advance in organisations, especially in the public sector, you need a degree.

    Again is this really beneficial to the employer or does this just artificially create demand ?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    TBH it is what I have seen reported. It’s an emotive subject and you may well be right and their view is more nuanced than reported in a clickbait article on social media.
    FWIW I think it's absolutely insane to own one of the things (or indeed a pit bull or even bulldog) - just too risky, even if utterly amiable and well socialised, as they might be frightened by something out of one's control. As for deliberate training ...!
    That’s before we get into the murky world of dogfighting too.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871
    edited September 2023
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:


    Phil said:

    On Bully XLs, do sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

    The Dangerous Dogs Act may be a bad act, but this is the situation it was drawn up to actually deal with. Are we going to have to wait for more children to get torn apart before this fighting breed is banned, as it should be?

    How many kids have been torn apart by this breed ?

    Is this a relatively new breed to the U.K. ? Prior to the past few weeks when they are in the news a fair bit I’d never heard of this breed.

    The RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are against a ban. They probably should be banned but there is a powerful and influential lobby supporting them.
    7 out of 10 dog deaths last year were thanks to Bully XLs, despite them being a tiny proportion of total dogs

    And yes, children have died. Here’s one - and the c*nt that owned the XL that did the killing


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10190427/Roofer-Lee-Jenkins-sold-dog-Beast-killed-Jack-Lis-did-not-like-dogs.html

    The account of the child’s mother

    https://x.com/emma__whitfield/status/1697220573674283101?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    Thanks.

    Beggars belief that the RSPCA is against action on them.
    You sure? AIUI the RSPCA doesn't think that specific breed bans work very well (quite apart from the legal difficulties, vide DDA). It advises other measures, not least because other breeds and crosses are also problems. Which is not the same thing.
    Bollocks

    The government was about to announce a ban and then the RSPCA intervened and started a letter-writing campaign and the government lost its nerve, pathetically

    Bans work. We know this. Australia bans them. Ontatrio bans them. These places are not suffering sudden spikes in dog deaths

    Australia has a blanket ban which just says "any dogs with characteristics resembling pit bulls" etc etc. Total ban, totally effective

    Why are you on the side of the evil Satan dogs which eat children?
    I'm not. But there is no point in passing laws which don't function. It only makes the problem worse.

    As noted by others on PB, the DDA is a classic of how not to do it.

    Edit: that Australian law is purely descriptive/empirical. It's not breed based (if I read you rightly). Yet a lot of the current panic is specific to the breed.
    So use the Australian method. Ban all dogs that look like this. Job done

    Or do you want more kids to die?
    That'sa a good empirical approach. So why focus on one breed? Which may not even be legally definable - I've not been following it, but it could be some sort of new hybrid, like a cockapoo.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    A little bit of argy bargy, as the late and much missed a Bill McLaren would have said.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,369
    Pagan2 said:

    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    The simple fact is a lot of jobs now demand a degree in the advert that never used to. I remain unconvinced they really need a degree when they didnt in the past. All it has done in effect is to close off jobs for non graduates
    The faster the pace of technological change, the more quickly anything technical that anyone learns at the age of 20 becomes obsolete.

    It's so obvious that what's needed for "jobs of the future" (if there are going to be jobs in the future) is the opportunity for lifelong training, not diverting more resources into enabling young people to waste three years of their lives.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,047
    Scotland doing well holding off the Boer hordes
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    The simple fact is a lot of jobs now demand a degree in the advert that never used to. I remain unconvinced they really need a degree when they didnt in the past. All it has done in effect is to close off jobs for non graduates
    To get a job at Land Rover, certainly for technical roles, you need a degree. Previously HNC/HND would be fine. A contractor doesn’t need one but a permie does. Why ? It makes little sense really.

    To advance in organisations, especially in the public sector, you need a degree.

    Again is this really beneficial to the employer or does this just artificially create demand ?
    There are definitely roles that a degree is a prerequisite. I for example wouldn't want to drive over a bridge designed by someone who hadn't got a degree in structural engineering. On the other hand you see adverts asking for people to work in the insurance industry ( a firm was on the floor below us and used to chat to a few of them) the job involved ringing people up and filling out a form on screen following a script.....doesnt really seem like something that needs a degree to me
  • Options
    These southern hemisphere refs let a lot more go than the northern hemisphere ones
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,517
    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    The simple fact is a lot of jobs now demand a degree in the advert that never used to. I remain unconvinced they really need a degree when they didnt in the past. All it has done in effect is to close off jobs for non graduates
    To get a job at Land Rover, certainly for technical roles, you need a degree. Previously HNC/HND would be fine. A contractor doesn’t need one but a permie does. Why ? It makes little sense really.

    To advance in organisations, especially in the public sector, you need a degree.

    Again is this really beneficial to the employer or does this just artificially create demand ?
    I worked in the City in the early days of credentialisation (no job without degree) - contractors without degrees were common. There are still a few about.
  • Options
    Taz said:

    A little bit of argy bargy, as the late and much missed a Bill McLaren would have said.

    Just a few cuddles, as Nigel Owens would say
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,104
    Chris said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    The simple fact is a lot of jobs now demand a degree in the advert that never used to. I remain unconvinced they really need a degree when they didnt in the past. All it has done in effect is to close off jobs for non graduates
    The faster the pace of technological change, the more quickly anything technical that anyone learns at the age of 20 becomes obsolete.

    It's so obvious that what's needed for "jobs of the future" (if there are going to be jobs in the future) is the opportunity for lifelong training, not diverting more resources into enabling young people to waste three years of their lives.
    Tell me about it I am a software engineer....I am constantly having to learn new stuff. Self taught as a c programmer and no degree. Since then I have had to learn c++,c#,javascript,html,angular,react, com and dcom, docker, jenkins, teamcity,git and many other things
  • Options
    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    I am often in sympathy with the Blair institute but on this one think they are fighting the battles of Blairs youth rather than today or tomorrows youth. It is a very common failure of politicians and political thought generally.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Scotland doing well holding off the Boer hordes

    Scotland badly need a try
  • Options

    These southern hemisphere refs let a lot more go than the northern hemisphere ones

    But then sometimes a more lenient decision can seem fairer...
  • Options

    Several things are true at once.

    The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.

    Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.

    A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.

    The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.

    All true. Here are some more;

    The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.)

    The sector actually did a remarkable job of going digital in 2020, but too much of that was binned thanks to government and media pressure.

    The 2010 student loans scheme (high interest, write offs and all) was pretty well fine-tuned to pluck as many feathers as possible from the graduate cohort in a reasonably just way. You just have to accept that it's not a real interest rate and that the write off was part of the design. The changes since then have sounded like improvements but made things worse at the sharp end.

    Oh, and a lot of the universities most at risk of collapse are in the sort of places that can't really afford to lose them.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,015
    Pagan2 said:

    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Taz said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Developing the idea I had on the previous thread.

    What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?

    I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.

    Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.

    Just checking what you mean:

    A working person pays a standard rate of 32% on income above c.£12.5k, whereas those |(like me now) living off non-employment income pay £20%. Do you mean to flip that round to so a worker pays 20% and the unearned income person pays 32%? If so that would be tricky to do, and, I'd say, as unfair as the current system.

    If you mean for everyone to pay the same rate on income, whatever the source, that would be easier. As I and several others on here have suggested, you could drop the employees NI rate by, say, 2% and raise the basic tax rate by the same each year until after 6 years ee's NI is zero and everyone is paying the same rate on their income.

    Clearly, in doing that you could drop the 32% to a target of say 30%* and probably raise the same overall, which would leave the basic rater worker paying 2% less on their income.

    (*I haven't done the calculation - can't find the data to do it - but the Treasury will know.)
    Do the same with eliminating the graduate tax too.

    A working graduate earning £25k+ on the latest student loans threshold pays 41% tax (20+12+9) which is effectively a for-life higher tax rate as they'll never repay the so-called "loan" at the amounts quoted.

    Merge graduate tax in with income tax. It'd probably be only 1% or 2% if paid by everyone instead of 9% currently.
    Why should those who didn't go to university subsidies those who did?
    I remember one answer on Question Time when a Tory politician asked why a dustman should subsidise a questioner's university education:

    'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
    Of course the fact that he makes 100k a year from his medical degree and a generous pension vs the dustmans 20k a year. Yeah you can really see why the dustman is the beneficiary and should be glad to pay extra tax.

    Career average for graduates is 36k which gives a total tax including ni of circa 6k.....thats basically 10 years of their working life that they are merely contributing enough pay back what was spent on the university education as I assume you want grants as well for living costs. 10 years in which all the non university entrants have to cover their share of NHS, defence , justice. Free university education would mostly be welfare for the middle classes. Now if we cut university education back to 10% of the population we can talk. Frankly most jobs that nowadays demand a degree don't actually need one
    Yes. It’s a quandary. Supporting people going to university tends to support the middle classes; it’s regressive. But supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole.

    Of course, in your example, the person with a medical degree will pay more income tax/NI. The person on £100k is paying a lot more income tax/NI than the person on 20k, about 15 times as much.
    "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole"

    Surely a "Laffer curve" is applicable here? No-one going to university is very bad, but everyone going to university, especially if academic, also bad. There will be a sweet spot in the middle that is optimal. We may already be beyond that.

    I would suggest the assertion that "supporting people going to university does benefit the country as a whole" at the current marginal rates needs some evidence and is unproven (possibly unprovable) either way. My guess is we would benefit from less academic university courses but more vocational training and especially more lifelong learning.
    That would be mine too yet the likes of the Blair institute believe we should increase the amount of people going to Uni from the current 50% to 75% to deal with the jobs of the future. I wonder how many of these won’t be needed due to AI.
    The simple fact is a lot of jobs now demand a degree in the advert that never used to. I remain unconvinced they really need a degree when they didnt in the past. All it has done in effect is to close off jobs for non graduates
    To get a job at Land Rover, certainly for technical roles, you need a degree. Previously HNC/HND would be fine. A contractor doesn’t need one but a permie does. Why ? It makes little sense really.

    To advance in organisations, especially in the public sector, you need a degree.

    Again is this really beneficial to the employer or does this just artificially create demand ?
    There are definitely roles that a degree is a prerequisite. I for example wouldn't want to drive over a bridge designed by someone who hadn't got a degree in structural engineering. On the other hand you see adverts asking for people to work in the insurance industry ( a firm was on the floor below us and used to chat to a few of them) the job involved ringing people up and filling out a form on screen following a script.....doesnt really seem like something that needs a degree to me
    Yes, some jobs a degree is essential and prior to the explosion in degree courses these were adequately careered for.

    But, as you say, many jobs now have a degree that don’t really require them. In engineering apprenticeships and vocational qualifications used to be sufficient as well as, for older candidates, on the job experience which is the best grounding.
This discussion has been closed.