Categories
The voters say I can’t get no satisfaction with the Tories – politicalbetting.com
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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 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
Good afternoon, everybody.
In short, the Government is twisting the numbers.
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.)
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.
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66752785
(Accomplished only in that respect.)
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.
...the government is supporting the development of new build CCGT power plants and blue hydrogen plants.
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?
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.
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
though ;-)
Why should those without children pay for schools?
Why should those who use little electricity pay for net zero transition costs?
Why should those in well paying jobs pay for universal credit for those those in low paying jobs?
(Though much university education should be better).
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?
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
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
'Because when he has a heart attack, he'll be glad I studied for my medical degree.'
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
(tho I fear the worst)
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
"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."
"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
Or do you want more kids to die?
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….
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 ?
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.
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.
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.