I'm a huge fan of Jimmy Carr, I've often been compared to him, we have a similar sense of humour.
I can't stand Jimmy Carr. He's smug and smarmy, his humour is often unpleasant and unkind as well as empty and laboured, he's not actually very funny, and he's a tax dodger to boot. I think people are right to compare him to Bob Monkhouse, but the latter had much better people writing his jokes for him. People like Stewart Lee or Peter Kay are far better comedians. Even Michael Macintyre is a far better comedian than Jimmy Carr. Jack Whitehall is probably the only comedian worse than Jimmy Carr.
Congratulations, you have officially posted the wrongest thing in the history of PB.
That would certainly be an achievement, were it true. We all know you are drawn to smug, talentless chancers with iffy tax affairs, so your admiration for Mr Carr is sadly unsurprising. At least he's only responsible for 9 out of 10 cats do Countdown and not Brexit.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
I think he was much closer to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, but that's one for another day.
What a master of the journalistic essay Cooke was. We shall not see his like again.
Also, since I'm at it, was JFK perhaps the last great orator? Why do we not have great public speakers these days?
Obama was pretty good at speeches. Being President not so much.
Whereas Biden seems more the other way around.
He's been a better POTUS than Obama, best since Clinton in my view.
Yes I would agree. He has a good team around him with a lot of experience and he trusts them to get on with it. It’s why I am fairly relaxed about someone clearly verging on senility being re elected.
I'm a huge fan of Jimmy Carr, I've often been compared to him, we have a similar sense of humour.
I can't stand Jimmy Carr. He's smug and smarmy, his humour is often unpleasant and unkind as well as empty and laboured, he's not actually very funny, and he's a tax dodger to boot. I think people are right to compare him to Bob Monkhouse, but the latter had much better people writing his jokes for him. People like Stewart Lee or Peter Kay are far better comedians. Even Michael Macintyre is a far better comedian than Jimmy Carr. Jack Whitehall is probably the only comedian worse than Jimmy Carr.
Congratulations, you have officially posted the wrongest thing in the history of PB.
That would certainly be an achievement, were it true. We all know you are drawn to smug, talentless chancers with iffy tax affairs, so your admiration for Mr Carr is sadly unsurprising. At least he's only responsible for 9 out of 10 cats do Countdown and not Brexit.
I don't share many tastes with Eagles but I quite like Jimmy Carr too.
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
Yougov today finds 46% of voters (including 59% of Conservative voters) agreeing it is now realistic for the Government to cut taxes.
One thing you can say about JFK 1963: security was incredibly lax, especially when you consider it was height of the Cold War with the Bay of Pigs incident a couple of years earlier.
I'm a huge fan of Jimmy Carr, I've often been compared to him, we have a similar sense of humour.
I can't stand Jimmy Carr. He's smug and smarmy, his humour is often unpleasant and unkind as well as empty and laboured, he's not actually very funny, and he's a tax dodger to boot. I think people are right to compare him to Bob Monkhouse, but the latter had much better people writing his jokes for him. People like Stewart Lee or Peter Kay are far better comedians. Even Michael Macintyre is a far better comedian than Jimmy Carr. Jack Whitehall is probably the only comedian worse than Jimmy Carr.
Congratulations, you have officially posted the wrongest thing in the history of PB.
That would certainly be an achievement, were it true. We all know you are drawn to smug, talentless chancers with iffy tax affairs, so your admiration for Mr Carr is sadly unsurprising. At least he's only responsible for 9 out of 10 cats do Countdown and not Brexit.
That's a bit harsh. I've never heard TSE express approval for Jeremy Corbyn or Ian Lavery.
Nothing tonight on here about Stockton being, allegedly, a s***hole?
Having done some work for a firm there a few years ago, when I went that description seemed entirely accurate.
Specifically, Stockton NORTH is, allegedly, a shithole. Stockton South is quite nice.
Stockton is one of a troika of unfashionable east coast towns in which I have bought really good trousers, along with Hartlepool and Boston. Black pin striped jeans, in this case. *brief lament for the long-gone 21-year-old Cookie who could carry off pin striped jeans.
is Stockton on the coast?
It is. Stockton and Darlington Railway was built to communicate with shipping. Though replaced as a port by Middlesborough some decades on.
Stockton is much nicer than Middlesbrough though. Widest high street in the country, apparently. Middlesbrough has the slightly depressing air of any town which sprang to existence out of nothing in the Victorian era. (c.f. Crewe). Stockton feels more like the old market town it is, even if it is largely a product of the industrial revolution and not desperately well off. But the reason Stockton North is so poor is that it is largely Billingham. And you'd be working very hard at looking on the bright side to say that Billingham isn't a shithole.
Used to go to play hockey against Billingham once a year, before Synthonia closed down. Really nice place.
Billingham Synthonia used to have a football team, IIRC. There were some good team names on Teesside. Thornaby Utopians and Middlesbrough Ironopolis contested an FA Cup semi final back in 1905, I think.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
Was the poster concerned unaware of the context? That they were mentioning a Nazi-designed passive genocide as a serious alternative to what became the state of Israel?
Ken Livingstone is clearly now posting on PB despite health issues...
“Resettlement to Madagascar” would have been as much a euphemism as “special treatment.”
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
Nothing tonight on here about Stockton being, allegedly, a s***hole?
Having done some work for a firm there a few years ago, when I went that description seemed entirely accurate.
Specifically, Stockton NORTH is, allegedly, a shithole. Stockton South is quite nice.
Stockton is one of a troika of unfashionable east coast towns in which I have bought really good trousers, along with Hartlepool and Boston. Black pin striped jeans, in this case. *brief lament for the long-gone 21-year-old Cookie who could carry off pin striped jeans.
is Stockton on the coast?
It is. Stockton and Darlington Railway was built to communicate with shipping. Though replaced as a port by Middlesborough some decades on.
Stockton is much nicer than Middlesbrough though. Widest high street in the country, apparently. Middlesbrough has the slightly depressing air of any town which sprang to existence out of nothing in the Victorian era. (c.f. Crewe). Stockton feels more like the old market town it is, even if it is largely a product of the industrial revolution and not desperately well off. But the reason Stockton North is so poor is that it is largely Billingham. And you'd be working very hard at looking on the bright side to say that Billingham isn't a shithole.
Used to go to play hockey against Billingham once a year, before Synthonia closed down. Really nice place.
Billingham Synthonia used to have a football team, IIRC. There were some good team names on Teesside. Thornaby Utopians and Middlesbrough Ironopolis contested an FA Cup semi final back in 1905, I think.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
In the run up to GE2015 it was said the Tories needed a lead of 10% to win a majority of 2.
I'm a huge fan of Jimmy Carr, I've often been compared to him, we have a similar sense of humour.
I can't stand Jimmy Carr. He's smug and smarmy, his humour is often unpleasant and unkind as well as empty and laboured, he's not actually very funny, and he's a tax dodger to boot. I think people are right to compare him to Bob Monkhouse, but the latter had much better people writing his jokes for him. People like Stewart Lee or Peter Kay are far better comedians. Even Michael Macintyre is a far better comedian than Jimmy Carr. Jack Whitehall is probably the only comedian worse than Jimmy Carr.
Congratulations, you have officially posted the wrongest thing in the history of PB.
That would certainly be an achievement, were it true. We all know you are drawn to smug, talentless chancers with iffy tax affairs, so your admiration for Mr Carr is sadly unsurprising. At least he's only responsible for 9 out of 10 cats do Countdown and not Brexit.
I like him because he went to Gonville & Caius has the same outrageous sense of humour as me.
Incidentally we are moving more to a contribution based pension system. Working people nowadays all by law, unless they opt out, need to be contributing to a pension.
Since this is a genuine contribution based system, that money goes not to HMRC in taxation but to their pension provider instead.
Contributions should go to whichever company is covering the service they're contributing towards. Whatever is left for taxation should be covered by all taxpayers.
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
Yougov today finds 46% of voters (including 59% of Conservative voters) agreeing it is now realistic for the Government to cut taxes.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
In the run up to GE2015 it was said the Tories needed a lead of 10% to win a majority of 2.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
That was before the recent movement in Scottish polling
Is it weird that people develop conspiracy theories over successful assassinations but not unsuccessful ones? I mean, Hinkley very nearly did kill Reagan and I dont think anyone doubts the official story there despite it being nearly successful.
I read an "alternative history" story once where JFK survives the shooting. But the conspiracy theorists say he actually died, and was replaced by a doppelganger! Spoiler alert - the end of the story results in President Perot.
My favourite JFK conspiracy was that it was suicide. The Man On The Grassy Knoll was…. JFK.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
In the run up to GE2015 it was said the Tories needed a lead of 10% to win a majority of 2.
My boy Dave (PBUH) did it with 6%.
10-13 percent on UNS?
But there's pretty decent evidence that the S will not be U, N.
(Also, ten months ago was just before the sinking of Sturgeon. The fall of the SNP has a massive effect on what Labour need to do in England.)
Nothing tonight on here about Stockton being, allegedly, a s***hole?
Having done some work for a firm there a few years ago, when I went that description seemed entirely accurate.
Specifically, Stockton NORTH is, allegedly, a shithole. Stockton South is quite nice.
Stockton is one of a troika of unfashionable east coast towns in which I have bought really good trousers, along with Hartlepool and Boston. Black pin striped jeans, in this case. *brief lament for the long-gone 21-year-old Cookie who could carry off pin striped jeans.
is Stockton on the coast?
It is. Stockton and Darlington Railway was built to communicate with shipping. Though replaced as a port by Middlesborough some decades on.
Stockton is much nicer than Middlesbrough though. Widest high street in the country, apparently. Middlesbrough has the slightly depressing air of any town which sprang to existence out of nothing in the Victorian era. (c.f. Crewe). Stockton feels more like the old market town it is, even if it is largely a product of the industrial revolution and not desperately well off. But the reason Stockton North is so poor is that it is largely Billingham. And you'd be working very hard at looking on the bright side to say that Billingham isn't a shithole.
Used to go to play hockey against Billingham once a year, before Synthonia closed down. Really nice place.
Billingham Synthonia used to have a football team, IIRC. There were some good team names on Teesside. Thornaby Utopians and Middlesbrough Ironopolis contested an FA Cup semi final back in 1905, I think.
They still do. Although their ground has become derelict and they play in Stokesley now. They've been supplanted by Billingham Town who actually play in Billingham. Brian Clough started at Synthonia before National Service.
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
Yougov today finds 46% of voters (including 59% of Conservative voters) agreeing it is now realistic for the Government to cut taxes.
Is it weird that people develop conspiracy theories over successful assassinations but not unsuccessful ones? I mean, Hinkley very nearly did kill Reagan and I dont think anyone doubts the official story there despite it being nearly successful.
I read an "alternative history" story once where JFK survives the shooting. But the conspiracy theorists say he actually died, and was replaced by a doppelganger! Spoiler alert - the end of the story results in President Perot.
My favourite JFK conspiracy was that it was suicide. The Man On The Grassy Knoll was…. JFK.
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
Yougov today finds 46% of voters (including 59% of Conservative voters) agreeing it is now realistic for the Government to cut taxes.
It is a tax. Everyone knows it except you. But overall they have increased the tax burden even if tinkering around a bit.
The government are asking us to notice the envelope full of tenners they are proffering, and ignore the small details that
a) a much bigger pre-arranged direct debit has just come out of our bank account and b) the envelope had "repair fund" written on it, but very hastily scribbled out.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
In the run up to GE2015 it was said the Tories needed a lead of 10% to win a majority of 2.
My boy Dave (PBUH) did it with 6%.
10-13 percent on UNS?
But there's pretty decent evidence that the S will not be U, N.
(Also, ten months ago was just before the sinking of Sturgeon. The fall of the SNP has a massive effect on what Labour need to do in England.)
Indeed.
One of the few things I have gotten wrong spectacularly was one element of the 2015 GE.
I thought there was no chance of the Tories being the largest party let alone win a majority if UKIP polled double digits yet that's what happened.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
It should exist today, we could easily return to a situation where you can only claim the state pension and JSA with sufficient NI contributions (not including credits) and if you haven't contributed enough you can only get UC or pension credit.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
Is it weird that people develop conspiracy theories over successful assassinations but not unsuccessful ones? I mean, Hinkley very nearly did kill Reagan and I dont think anyone doubts the official story there despite it being nearly successful.
I read an "alternative history" story once where JFK survives the shooting.
"The Winterberry" by Nick DiChario. I can't find a easy copy. I read it. It is narrated by an invalid child wondering why Uncle Teddy and the pretty lady come to see him and why they are so sad. It becomes apparent that the "child" is the adult JFK, brain-damaged after the assassination, and that "Uncle Teddy" and the pretty lady are Edward and Jackie Kennedy. It's really good and I wish I could show you a copy.
If you enjoy a little alternate history - there is an old TV play called "The Night Conspirators" which is very worth a go. Not terribly easy to find - I can shove it online if you're interested.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
It should exist today, we could easily return to a situation where you can only claim the state pension and JSA with sufficient NI contributions (not including credits) and if you haven't contributed enough you can only get UC or pension credit.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
Its doesn't exist today, if you want to create a system whereby you only claim things by contributing to an insurance scheme then create that system and the insurance scheme to go with it.
In the meantime, NI is a tax and should be merged with other taxes.
If you want to ringfence NI to only go to what is genuinely contributed towards, then great, the amount is zero, so it can be abolished.
Nah, Kinnock was a poor speaker overall. Passionate yes, but too wordy and not able to construct speeches that resonate down the years.
Contrast with JFK:
“Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
The triumph of neolibs is that they have managed trigger a pavlovian reaction to 'tax', even amongst those who don't pay and won't ever pay the specific tax that's being discussed e.g. IHT.
Labour seem afraid to challenge this and one can understand why. But people want good public services and those need to be paid for by us, not by borrowing, not by some mythological 'efficiency savings'.
The honest approach would be to say to the country something like:
Do you want a top class health service with short waiting times? Do you want fully staffed schools in buildings that aren't going to fall down? Do you want good public transport and roads that aren't congested, closed or riddled with potholes? Do you want councils that can deliver good local services without going bankrupt. Do you want a well funded police service that actively prevents and investigates crime? Do you want a criminal justice system that prosecutes criminal quickly and justly? Do you want a robust immigration service that deals quickly and humanely with illegal immigrants?
Do you want all these things?
So do we, but here's the truth: those things need to be paid for, and you should understand that that means the country has to raise enough taxes to do these things properly without borrowing and adding to our debt.
We will do that and we will do so in a way that ensures the poorest pay no more but the wealthiest will see their taxes increase. Everyone, no matter what their wealth or income will benefit from better public services and, in time, reduced national debt.
The 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' election of 1992 casts a long shadow. I think there remains a statistically significant chance that a party that tells the truth about tax and spend will lose the election. So no-one is going to be the first to break ranks with the post-1992 consensus of 'Avoid'.
So, a 2nd May General Election. I had anticipated that Dishi would go as long as possible and hope for a Black Swan. Has the australian persuaded him that the least worst option is have a big positive push and go early?
In which case the sacking of Suella was critical. In which case the "We guarantee we will get people to Rwanda" pledges afterwards are a core part of their GE strategy. Which we know only finds support in their remaining bastions of support.
I now have a busy few weeks planning the work, before we clear Hogmanay and work the plan. Would rather be me than Matt Vickers right now...!
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
In the run up to GE2015 it was said the Tories needed a lead of 10% to win a majority of 2.
My boy Dave (PBUH) did it with 6%.
10-13 percent on UNS?
But there's pretty decent evidence that the S will not be U, N.
(Also, ten months ago was just before the sinking of Sturgeon. The fall of the SNP has a massive effect on what Labour need to do in England.)
Indeed.
One of the few things I have gotten wrong spectacularly was one element of the 2015 GE.
I thought there was no chance of the Tories being the largest party let alone win a majority if UKIP polled double digits yet that's what happened.
In many cases, it wasn't so much that the Conservative vote went up a lot, it was just that the Lib Dem vote cratered. Here are the votes for the South West;
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
It should exist today, we could easily return to a situation where you can only claim the state pension and JSA with sufficient NI contributions (not including credits) and if you haven't contributed enough you can only get UC or pension credit.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
We could do that (and arguably we are already part of the way there) but recognise most of these countries pay more than we do.
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
In the run up to GE2015 it was said the Tories needed a lead of 10% to win a majority of 2.
My boy Dave (PBUH) did it with 6%.
10-13 percent on UNS?
But there's pretty decent evidence that the S will not be U, N.
(Also, ten months ago was just before the sinking of Sturgeon. The fall of the SNP has a massive effect on what Labour need to do in England.)
All good points, making it easier for Labour than otherwise to win +325 seats. However tactical voting of sorts isn't all on the centre left, there are plenty of possible people to vote Tory holding their noses, even as they did in 2017 and 2019. And the SNP could of course recover some ground. (And would if they put in a half decent leader named Kate Forbes).
But the NOM area is immense and plausible. Tories lose absolute control of events if they lose 41 seats (easy). Labour only gain control of events if they gain 123 seats (hard).
Tories Can Block Labour Majority With Six-Point Shift, Poll Says
(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could prevent the opposition Labour Party from winning a parliamentary majority at the next election if his Conservatives can claw back just six points in the polls from voters who would have otherwise stayed at home or supported one of the UK’s minor political parties, according to data published by research consultancy Stonehaven. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/tories-block-labour-majority-six-050000293.html
Peter Kellner, 10 months ago, suggested that for a majority Labour need to be 10-13 points ahead. If this is correct there is a clear foundation for suggesting that NOM could be value in the betting. All it needs is smallish movement from Reform (!) to Tory (certain), from Labour to Tory (possible) and from Stay at Home/Don't Know to Tory (likely).
In the run up to GE2015 it was said the Tories needed a lead of 10% to win a majority of 2.
My boy Dave (PBUH) did it with 6%.
10-13 percent on UNS?
But there's pretty decent evidence that the S will not be U, N.
(Also, ten months ago was just before the sinking of Sturgeon. The fall of the SNP has a massive effect on what Labour need to do in England.)
Indeed.
One of the few things I have gotten wrong spectacularly was one element of the 2015 GE.
I thought there was no chance of the Tories being the largest party let alone win a majority if UKIP polled double digits yet that's what happened.
That's because Lib Dem voters went to UKIP.
The idea that UKIP voters were ex-Tories is unsubstantiated nonsense.
Third party none-of-the-above, I-dislike-you-all voters went from one third party to another.
Most voters give an infinitesimal fraction of the attention that we all give to politics, so one third party to another is a like for like swap, even if they have completely different policies.
So, a 2nd May General Election. I had anticipated that Dishi would go as long as possible and hope for a Black Swan. Has the australian persuaded him that the least worst option is have a big positive push and go early?
In which case the sacking of Suella was critical. In which case the "We guarantee we will get people to Rwanda" pledges afterwards are a core part of their GE strategy. Which we know only finds support in their remaining bastions of support.
I now have a busy few weeks planning the work, before we clear Hogmanay and work the plan. Would rather be me than Matt Vickers right now...!
It's probably just that party workers don't much fancy having to campaign in dark, cold weather.
Was the poster concerned unaware of the context? That they were mentioning a Nazi-designed passive genocide as a serious alternative to what became the state of Israel?
Ken Livingstone is clearly now posting on PB despite health issues...
“Resettlement to Madagascar” would have been as much a euphemism as “special treatment.”
How about Rwanda?
Do you see a distinction between people trying to enter the country and people who have been living there for hundreds of years?
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
The triumph of neolibs is that they have managed trigger a pavlovian reaction to 'tax', even amongst those who don't pay and won't ever pay the specific tax that's being discussed e.g. IHT.
Labour seem afraid to challenge this and one can understand why. But people want good public services and those need to be paid for by us, not by borrowing, not by some mythological 'efficiency savings'.
The honest approach would be to say to the country something like:
Do you want a top class health service with short waiting times? Do you want fully staffed schools in buildings that aren't going to fall down? Do you want good public transport and roads that aren't congested, closed or riddled with potholes? Do you want councils that can deliver good local services without going bankrupt. Do you want a well funded police service that actively prevents and investigates crime? Do you want a criminal justice system that prosecutes criminal quickly and justly? Do you want a robust immigration service that deals quickly and humanely with illegal immigrants?
Do you want all these things?
So do we, but here's the truth: those things need to be paid for, and you should understand that that means the country has to raise enough taxes to do these things properly without borrowing and adding to our debt.
We will do that and we will do so in a way that ensures the poorest pay no more but the wealthiest will see their taxes increase. Everyone, no matter what their wealth or income will benefit from better public services and, in time, reduced national debt.
That sounds lovely but the reality is more likely to be something like this:
Do you want to pay for more public sector fat cats? Do you want to pay for more IT failures? Do you want to pay for more wokery and control freakery? Do you want to pay for procurement failures and white elephants? Do you want to pay for more quangos? Do you want the government to give your money to dodgy charities?
The problem I have with politicians' promises is that they tend to focus on inputs e.g. we'll recruit 10,000 new police rather than outputs e.g. we'll cut waiting lists (Rishi is one of the few who has focussed on outputs and he is failing).
Let me pose a question: if the government was a public limited company, would you be willing to buy their shares? if the answer is no, then why would you be happy to hand over more tax?
I think he was much closer to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, but that's one for another day.
What a master of the journalistic essay Cooke was. We shall not see his like again.
Also, since I'm at it, was JFK perhaps the last great orator? Why do we not have great public speakers these days?
Obama was pretty good at speeches. Being President not so much.
Reagan was pretty good at quips. Speeches less so But at being President he was really good no matter what Spitting Image may have caricatured
Reagan was a good President, aside from conspiring with Iran to delay releasing the hostages, the illegal Iran-Contra affair, and running vast budget deficits.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
So, a 2nd May General Election. I had anticipated that Dishi would go as long as possible and hope for a Black Swan. Has the australian persuaded him that the least worst option is have a big positive push and go early?
In which case the sacking of Suella was critical. In which case the "We guarantee we will get people to Rwanda" pledges afterwards are a core part of their GE strategy. Which we know only finds support in their remaining bastions of support.
I now have a busy few weeks planning the work, before we clear Hogmanay and work the plan. Would rather be me than Matt Vickers right now...!
It's probably just that party workers don't much fancy having to campaign in dark, cold weather.
A 2nd May election? That means campaigning in dark cold weather before the restricted period starts. Still, its 4 months and then I get my life back.
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
The triumph of neolibs is that they have managed trigger a pavlovian reaction to 'tax', even amongst those who don't pay and won't ever pay the specific tax that's being discussed e.g. IHT.
Labour seem afraid to challenge this and one can understand why. But people want good public services and those need to be paid for by us, not by borrowing, not by some mythological 'efficiency savings'.
The honest approach would be to say to the country something like:
Do you want a top class health service with short waiting times? Do you want fully staffed schools in buildings that aren't going to fall down? Do you want good public transport and roads that aren't congested, closed or riddled with potholes? Do you want councils that can deliver good local services without going bankrupt. Do you want a well funded police service that actively prevents and investigates crime? Do you want a criminal justice system that prosecutes criminal quickly and justly? Do you want a robust immigration service that deals quickly and humanely with illegal immigrants?
Do you want all these things?
So do we, but here's the truth: those things need to be paid for, and you should understand that that means the country has to raise enough taxes to do these things properly without borrowing and adding to our debt.
We will do that and we will do so in a way that ensures the poorest pay no more but the wealthiest will see their taxes increase. Everyone, no matter what their wealth or income will benefit from better public services and, in time, reduced national debt.
The 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' election of 1992 casts a long shadow. I think there remains a statistically significant chance that a party that tells the truth about tax and spend will lose the election. So no-one is going to be the first to break ranks with the post-1992 consensus of 'Avoid'.
True, sadly.
It would actually be helpful in this case for the major parties to agree a formula for truce: 'We all agree that levels of tax need to reflect expenditure, and that sometimes they rise and sometimes fall' sort of stuff. The moral and mental distortions are too great to bear at election time.
So, a 2nd May General Election. I had anticipated that Dishi would go as long as possible and hope for a Black Swan. Has the australian persuaded him that the least worst option is have a big positive push and go early?
In which case the sacking of Suella was critical. In which case the "We guarantee we will get people to Rwanda" pledges afterwards are a core part of their GE strategy. Which we know only finds support in their remaining bastions of support.
I now have a busy few weeks planning the work, before we clear Hogmanay and work the plan. Would rather be me than Matt Vickers right now...!
It's probably just that party workers don't much fancy having to campaign in dark, cold weather.
Which brings us back to the Borisian theory that winter elections favour the Conservatives by nullifying other parties' dominance of ground games, while their voters are more likely to turn out in bad weather. Next election: January 2025.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
It should exist today, we could easily return to a situation where you can only claim the state pension and JSA with sufficient NI contributions (not including credits) and if you haven't contributed enough you can only get UC or pension credit.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
Stick it in your manifesto and let the people decide.
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
The triumph of neolibs is that they have managed trigger a pavlovian reaction to 'tax', even amongst those who don't pay and won't ever pay the specific tax that's being discussed e.g. IHT.
Labour seem afraid to challenge this and one can understand why. But people want good public services and those need to be paid for by us, not by borrowing, not by some mythological 'efficiency savings'.
The honest approach would be to say to the country something like:
Do you want a top class health service with short waiting times? Do you want fully staffed schools in buildings that aren't going to fall down? Do you want good public transport and roads that aren't congested, closed or riddled with potholes? Do you want councils that can deliver good local services without going bankrupt. Do you want a well funded police service that actively prevents and investigates crime? Do you want a criminal justice system that prosecutes criminal quickly and justly? Do you want a robust immigration service that deals quickly and humanely with illegal immigrants?
Do you want all these things?
So do we, but here's the truth: those things need to be paid for, and you should understand that that means the country has to raise enough taxes to do these things properly without borrowing and adding to our debt.
We will do that and we will do so in a way that ensures the poorest pay no more but the wealthiest will see their taxes increase. Everyone, no matter what their wealth or income will benefit from better public services and, in time, reduced national debt.
That sounds lovely but the reality is more likely to be something like this:
Do you want to pay for more public sector fat cats? Do you want to pay for more IT failures? Do you want to pay for more wokery and control freakery? Do you want to pay for procurement failures and white elephants? Do you want to pay for more quangos? Do you want the government to give your money to dodgy charities?
The problem I have with politicians' promises is that they tend to focus on inputs e.g. we'll recruit 10,000 new police rather than outputs e.g. we'll cut waiting lists (Rishi is one of the few who has focussed on outputs and he is failing).
Let me pose a question: if the government was a public limited company, would you be willing to buy their shares? if the answer is no, then why would you be happy to hand over more tax?
Very well said.
We have chucked an unprecedented proportion of GDP at public services. A 7.5% drop in public service productivity has been the outcome. The CS and quangos are fat, swollen with overpaid senior managers (4000+ Directors in the CS excluding quangos) and full of hopeless idlers at every level. Significant cuts would do no harm at all.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
It should exist today, we could easily return to a situation where you can only claim the state pension and JSA with sufficient NI contributions (not including credits) and if you haven't contributed enough you can only get UC or pension credit.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
Stick it in your manifesto and let the people decide.
I would, although it was of course a Liberal government who first created NI to fund unemployment benefits and healthcare in 1911
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
And you were so worried about Trump you never saw Wilders coming....
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
It should exist today, we could easily return to a situation where you can only claim the state pension and JSA with sufficient NI contributions (not including credits) and if you haven't contributed enough you can only get UC or pension credit.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
Stick it in your manifesto and let the people decide.
I would, although it was of course a Liberal government who first created NI to fund unemployment benefits and healthcare in 1911
And that system was subsequently abolished, so what is your point?
Your logic is that you like round holes, so therefore we should keep this square peg.
If you want a contributory system, create one. NI is not it, so it should be abolished.
So what specifically do the Tories imagine will swing this around in time to call a GE on 2nd May? The tax "cut" is a tax hike - only a slightly shallower hike than previously announced. The economy is worse than they predicted earlier this year. Services and infrastructure aren't miraculously going to get fixed.
Why would voters in shitholes change their minds and decide to vote Tory again? Plan A is 240502, but why? The least worst scenario?
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
But its not that. We have the National Health Service, and pensions etc that postdate that and everyone can be eligible for even if they've never worked a day in their life.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
It should exist today, we could easily return to a situation where you can only claim the state pension and JSA with sufficient NI contributions (not including credits) and if you haven't contributed enough you can only get UC or pension credit.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
Stick it in your manifesto and let the people decide.
I would, although it was of course a Liberal government who first created NI to fund unemployment benefits and healthcare in 1911
And that system was subsequently abolished, so what is your point?
Your logic is that you like round holes, so therefore we should keep this square peg.
If you want a contributory system, create one. NI is not it, so it should be abolished.
It wasn't, the Attlee government in fact expanded it to fund unemployment and sickness benefits. Just it also created a taxpayer funded NHS and taxpayer funded National Assistance (which became Supplementary Benefit under Wilson and then income support under Thatcher and is now UC)
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
And you were so worried about Trump you never saw Wilders coming....
After the relief of the Polish election another major headache for the EU.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
Get ready to sedate Leon.
Big week for the populist hard libertarian right with Milei and Wilders topping the polls
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
And you were so worried about Trump you never saw Wilders coming....
Well, yes, fair play I have not being paying attention to Dutch politics
Last i seem to recall reading about Wilders is he lived in a steel box room due to the level of threats to his life.
Trump remains by a country mile the greatest threat to world peace and democracy though.
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
And you were so worried about Trump you never saw Wilders coming....
Well, yes, fair play I have not being paying attention to Dutch politics
Last i seem to recall reading about Wilders is he lived in a steel box room due to the level of threats to his life.
Trump remains by a country mile the greatest threat to world peace and democracy though.
To the extent the US is a superpower and the Netherlands hasn't been since the 17th century
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
And you were so worried about Trump you never saw Wilders coming....
Well, yes, fair play I have not being paying attention to Dutch politics
Last i seem to recall reading about Wilders is he lived in a steel box room due to the level of threats to his life.
Trump remains by a country mile the greatest threat to world peace and democracy though.
Phew! I thought that might be Putin for a mad moment
POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope · 21m 🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
And you were so worried about Trump you never saw Wilders coming....
Well, yes, fair play I have not being paying attention to Dutch politics
Last i seem to recall reading about Wilders is he lived in a steel box room due to the level of threats to his life.
Trump remains by a country mile the greatest threat to world peace and democracy though.
Phew! I thought that might be Putin for a mad moment
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
The triumph of neolibs is that they have managed trigger a pavlovian reaction to 'tax', even amongst those who don't pay and won't ever pay the specific tax that's being discussed e.g. IHT.
Labour seem afraid to challenge this and one can understand why. But people want good public services and those need to be paid for by us, not by borrowing, not by some mythological 'efficiency savings'.
The honest approach would be to say to the country something like:
Do you want a top class health service with short waiting times? Do you want fully staffed schools in buildings that aren't going to fall down? Do you want good public transport and roads that aren't congested, closed or riddled with potholes? Do you want councils that can deliver good local services without going bankrupt. Do you want a well funded police service that actively prevents and investigates crime? Do you want a criminal justice system that prosecutes criminal quickly and justly? Do you want a robust immigration service that deals quickly and humanely with illegal immigrants?
Do you want all these things?
So do we, but here's the truth: those things need to be paid for, and you should understand that that means the country has to raise enough taxes to do these things properly without borrowing and adding to our debt.
We will do that and we will do so in a way that ensures the poorest pay no more but the wealthiest will see their taxes increase. Everyone, no matter what their wealth or income will benefit from better public services and, in time, reduced national debt.
That sounds lovely but the reality is more likely to be something like this:
Do you want to pay for more public sector fat cats? Do you want to pay for more IT failures? Do you want to pay for more wokery and control freakery? Do you want to pay for procurement failures and white elephants? Do you want to pay for more quangos? Do you want the government to give your money to dodgy charities?
The problem I have with politicians' promises is that they tend to focus on inputs e.g. we'll recruit 10,000 new police rather than outputs e.g. we'll cut waiting lists (Rishi is one of the few who has focussed on outputs and he is failing).
Let me pose a question: if the government was a public limited company, would you be willing to buy their shares? if the answer is no, then why would you be happy to hand over more tax?
Because, in a nutshell, by paying taxes I am not investing in the government as I would a plc, I am paying my contribution for the public services that I (and you, and all of us) depend on.
Your analogy is facile; the UK is not a a plc, I am not investing for a financial return.
When will Goodwin be wanking on about this amazing result ! Wilders party is going to get around 23% of the vote, this isn’t a huge move to the far right . He wants a ref on EU membership even though he freely admits the Dutch don’t want to leave the EU and he has zip chance of becoming PM .
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
And would those who have paid their NI contributions (paying enough to fund £5300 per year) also get pension credit to top up their pension to the amount it currently is?
Because if we somehow manage to spend the £300 billion+ on those various things with £172 billion in NICs and the remaining £130 billion+ funded by other means - it's not exactly a ringfenced fund, is it?
The level in it will always be taken to the needed level by general taxation. And, as money is fungible, it's not at all a ringfenced fund, given that the only issue is the amount of extra funding that's needed from general taxation.
It's taxation. Doesn't matter what you want to handwave about 1911, or what is supposed to be. Cut NICs and you cut tax paid by people and income to the Treasury. And, I'll note, that despite NI cuts, we don't see either a pension cut or a slashing of NHS budgets - which would have to occur if things did follow your fantasy of them.
In fact, you should now be calling loudly for a cut to pensions, if you want to be consistent, given that we've just seen a cut to NI.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
Are you seriously proposing that the pension credits that parents get for the years they care for a disabled child, even where that disability is aggravated by givernment action, should have their pension lopped?
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
So are you proposing those who historically have been given NI Credits by the taxpayer and not via contributions should have their Credits reversed? Potentially ending their receipt of a pension they're already claiming?
Or do you accept that pensions are not-contributory and should be paid for out of general taxation?
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No change to Employers NI. I expect because no one is really aware it exists, so is a poor use of political capital.
As suggested by someone on the previous thread, we first need to make employer's NI visible. Make it compulsory to show gross pay prior to it. Needs a few years so it doesn't result in stealth pay cuts.
Next, we should merge employees and employers NI. And equalise the rates between employed and self employed. No reason tax rates should vary by type of work.
Finally, we should merge NI into income tax and simply link the state pension to having paid tax over a certain number of years, if needed.
Once the true tax rate is transparent and fairly applied, we may choose to shift the tax burden onto less productive areas such as wealth.
No we should not merge NI into income tax, we should use NI to move to a more contributory welfare and health system
Considering you get NI credits for being unemployed, how is anything contributory?
Why not just merge NI into income tax, then use income tax to move to a more contributory welfare and health system if that's what you want?
You can't use income tax for contributory welfare as it is also paid by pensioners not workers and is not an insurance.
National insurance is not an insurance either, and why shouldn't pensioners pay towards welfare?
They paid in when they paid NI
Rhetorically, that's how things work - but not in practice. Because the cost is so much higher than what they paid in. Each generation actually pays in for the previous one - with the compact being that the next will end up paying for them. That does become rather a problem though when you have a younger generation that are poorer than their parents, paying for their welfare that's now far more expensive than what they 'paid in'.
Taxes have to go up somewhere to make-up the difference - so it makes sense to target ones that result in a shared burden rather than making working age people even poorer to keep their parents in the style they are accustomed to, and maintain what has long been a political fiction.
When will Goodwin be wanking on about this amazing result ! Wilders party is going to get around 23% of the vote, this isn’t a huge move to the far right . He wants a ref on EU membership even though he freely admits the Dutch don’t want to leave the EU and he has zip chance of becoming PM .
I see Europe's plonker in chief has been at it already:
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
So are you proposing those who historically have been given NI Credits by the taxpayer and not via contributions should have their Credits reversed? Potentially ending their receipt of a pension they're already claiming?
Or do you accept that pensions are not-contributory and should be paid for out of general taxation?
It's HYUFD, you can be sure none of his proposed policies have been thought through at all.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
And would those who have paid their NI contributions (paying enough to fund £5300 per year) also get pension credit to top up their pension to the amount it currently is?
Because if we somehow manage to spend the £300 billion+ on those various things with £172 billion in NICs and the remaining £130 billion+ funded by other means - it's not exactly a ringfenced fund, is it?
The level in it will always be taken to the needed level by general taxation. And, as money is fungible, it's not at all a ringfenced fund, given that the only issue is the amount of extra funding that's needed from general taxation.
It's taxation. Doesn't matter what you want to handwave about 1911, or what is supposed to be. Cut NICs and you cut tax paid by people and income to the Treasury. And, I'll note, that despite NI cuts, we don't see either a pension cut or a slashing of NHS budgets - which would have to occur if things did follow your fantasy of them.
In fact, you should now be calling loudly for a cut to pensions, if you want to be consistent, given that we've just seen a cut to NI.
No, they would get the state pension they contributed to.
We would also cut the NHS budget paid for by taxpayers to only those unable to afford insurance
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
So are you proposing those who historically have been given NI Credits by the taxpayer and not via contributions should have their Credits reversed? Potentially ending their receipt of a pension they're already claiming?
Or do you accept that pensions are not-contributory and should be paid for out of general taxation?
They should not receive any state pension yes, only pension credit
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
And would those who have paid their NI contributions (paying enough to fund £5300 per year) also get pension credit to top up their pension to the amount it currently is?
Because if we somehow manage to spend the £300 billion+ on those various things with £172 billion in NICs and the remaining £130 billion+ funded by other means - it's not exactly a ringfenced fund, is it?
The level in it will always be taken to the needed level by general taxation. And, as money is fungible, it's not at all a ringfenced fund, given that the only issue is the amount of extra funding that's needed from general taxation.
It's taxation. Doesn't matter what you want to handwave about 1911, or what is supposed to be. Cut NICs and you cut tax paid by people and income to the Treasury. And, I'll note, that despite NI cuts, we don't see either a pension cut or a slashing of NHS budgets - which would have to occur if things did follow your fantasy of them.
In fact, you should now be calling loudly for a cut to pensions, if you want to be consistent, given that we've just seen a cut to NI.
No, they would get the state pension they contributed to.
We would also cut the NHS budget paid for by taxpayers to only those unable to afford insurance
You keep referring to this mythical pension they contributed to.
Great, abolish National Insurance for working age people today and pay pensions out of the pot that was contributed to.
Maybe some will be persuaded by the tax cut today. But overall the impression I’m getting is people are less worried about the tax they pay and more about the state of the services the government is funding.
I don’t think people are looking at the issues the country faces right now and thinking “if only my taxes were lower”, rightly or wrongly.
The fact is that the Tories have lost the argument on tax for the time being, if not from an economic perspective then certainly with the public. In time, they might start winning that argument again, but not in 2024.
The triumph of neolibs is that they have managed trigger a pavlovian reaction to 'tax', even amongst those who don't pay and won't ever pay the specific tax that's being discussed e.g. IHT.
Labour seem afraid to challenge this and one can understand why. But people want good public services and those need to be paid for by us, not by borrowing, not by some mythological 'efficiency savings'.
The honest approach would be to say to the country something like:
Do you want a top class health service with short waiting times? Do you want fully staffed schools in buildings that aren't going to fall down? Do you want good public transport and roads that aren't congested, closed or riddled with potholes? Do you want councils that can deliver good local services without going bankrupt. Do you want a well funded police service that actively prevents and investigates crime? Do you want a criminal justice system that prosecutes criminal quickly and justly? Do you want a robust immigration service that deals quickly and humanely with illegal immigrants?
Do you want all these things?
So do we, but here's the truth: those things need to be paid for, and you should understand that that means the country has to raise enough taxes to do these things properly without borrowing and adding to our debt.
We will do that and we will do so in a way that ensures the poorest pay no more but the wealthiest will see their taxes increase. Everyone, no matter what their wealth or income will benefit from better public services and, in time, reduced national debt.
That sounds lovely but the reality is more likely to be something like this:
Do you want to pay for more public sector fat cats? Do you want to pay for more IT failures? Do you want to pay for more wokery and control freakery? Do you want to pay for procurement failures and white elephants? Do you want to pay for more quangos? Do you want the government to give your money to dodgy charities?
The problem I have with politicians' promises is that they tend to focus on inputs e.g. we'll recruit 10,000 new police rather than outputs e.g. we'll cut waiting lists (Rishi is one of the few who has focussed on outputs and he is failing).
Let me pose a question: if the government was a public limited company, would you be willing to buy their shares? if the answer is no, then why would you be happy to hand over more tax?
Because, in a nutshell, by paying taxes I am not investing in the government as I would a plc, I am paying my contribution for the public services that I (and you, and all of us) depend on.
Your analogy is facile; the UK is not a a plc, I am not investing for a financial return.
But that's not strictly true is it. You are investing for a return of goods and services in kind which you would otherwise have to pay for yourself. In countries where the sytem works reasonably well this is considered a good investment as the state can certainly do some things better than a private company or individual. But the problem is that we have now moved to a position in too many countries including the UK where the return on investment is extremely poor or non existent. And at the same time the State is demanding that it gets involved in ever more areas and that we pay for those whether we like it or not.
Whilst it still does some things reasonably well, from a financial, an administrative and an organisational point of view UK PLC is failing extremely badly. Sacking the board might (will) help but the problems are more fundamental and concern the whole basis of the organisation, its operating procedures, aims and structure.
This is also a problem for many other first world countries. The US being one of the most obvious and extreme.
Just seen the National Insurance announcement - really good to see that cut, a total 180 on Sunak's disgraceful increase of it. Well done Hunt!
Shame though to see tax thresholds are still frozen.
Long term though, cutting National Insurance absolutely should be the priority, ideally it should be abolished/merged into Income Tax, so that earned and unearned incomes are treated exactly the same.
PS is it just Employees NI that has been cut? What about Employers NIC?
No it should not be merged into income tax, it should be ringfenced to fund JSA and some of the state pension and NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do
Given NI raises approx £172 billion and the NHS budget is approx £168 billion, you're proposing *really* savage cuts in social care, pensions and JSA.
I didn't say it should only fund the NHS, obviously income tax would still fund it partly too but most OECD nations fund healthcare at least partly via insurance
Yes, but we don't. Its a tax, the fact it has a name insurance does not mean anything, its still a tax.
It isn't entirely, you can't claim JSA now without NI contributions for example, only UC if you are below the savings threshold.
The state pension also needs NI contributions or NI credits
Yes and since you get NI credits for being unemployed, how exactly is that an insurance?
And you can claim JSA with a history of NI credits too.
Its utterly meaningless and is a tax.
Then we should scrap NI credits being used for JSA given you can now only claim it for 6 months and there is UC, we should keep NI
Why should we?
Merge them, and have income tax used. Pay your taxes, get a contribution, don't and you don't.
Tax is supposed to fund non contributory spending, defence, the police, culture, schools etc, things everyone should be able to benefit from (plus UC, pensioners credit and healthcare where recipients have not contributed enough to benefit).
NI should fund JSA and state pensions and a more insurance based healthcare system
NI is a tax though.
If you want insurance, pay for a private policy. The state taxing us is taxes, and everyone should pay the same tax rates.
The top 10% of income earners already largely do, they have private health insurance, use private schools, have private pensions and rarely claim unemployment benefits or UC.
It is expanding contributory welfare and health to the remaining 80% (other than the bottom earning 10% who can't afford it)
There is no such thing as contributory welfare.
If you want to get people to start taking out private policies, then advocate that as a policy, in the meantime for any taxes everybody should pay the same rate of tax.
There is no need for, or excuse to have, National Insurance.
Yes there is, in the US for example you can't get any unemployment benefits at all without sufficient employment contributions, most other OECD nations have an element of contributions based benefits too.
Most nations also have an insurance based element for state healthcare not just private healthcare, except for the very poorest.
Other nations have insurance systems yes, we don't. So NI should be wrapped into income tax, since that's all it is, a tax.
If you want to introduce an insurance based system then introduce that as a new policy.
That is not NI though.
We do, that was what NI was set up to be, an insurance based fund for the unemployed and healthcare and later the state pension as well.
So - if this ringfenced fund is low (say, during a recession with lower contributions and/or increased inflation), we should cut pensions?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
To be honest, under the HYUFD vision, we need to slash both NhS spending and pensions.
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s. To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK. And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
We can cut income tax too by the amount saved in NI contributions and as I said those without sufficient NICs would not get a state pension (only pension credit) and taxpayers would still fund those unable to pay enough NI to fund their healthcare or unable to go private (they would be the minority though)
And would those who have paid their NI contributions (paying enough to fund £5300 per year) also get pension credit to top up their pension to the amount it currently is?
Because if we somehow manage to spend the £300 billion+ on those various things with £172 billion in NICs and the remaining £130 billion+ funded by other means - it's not exactly a ringfenced fund, is it?
The level in it will always be taken to the needed level by general taxation. And, as money is fungible, it's not at all a ringfenced fund, given that the only issue is the amount of extra funding that's needed from general taxation.
It's taxation. Doesn't matter what you want to handwave about 1911, or what is supposed to be. Cut NICs and you cut tax paid by people and income to the Treasury. And, I'll note, that despite NI cuts, we don't see either a pension cut or a slashing of NHS budgets - which would have to occur if things did follow your fantasy of them.
In fact, you should now be calling loudly for a cut to pensions, if you want to be consistent, given that we've just seen a cut to NI.
No, they would get the state pension they contributed to.
We would also cut the NHS budget paid for by taxpayers to only those unable to afford insurance
You keep referring to this mythical pension they contributed to.
Great, abolish National Insurance for working age people today and pay pensions out of the pot that was contributed to.
Problem solved.
No pay state pensions out of the NI contributed to, scrap NI credits
I think he was much closer to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, but that's one for another day.
What a master of the journalistic essay Cooke was. We shall not see his like again.
Also, since I'm at it, was JFK perhaps the last great orator? Why do we not have great public speakers these days?
Obama was pretty good at speeches. Being President not so much.
Reagan was pretty good at quips. Speeches less so But at being President he was really good no matter what Spitting Image may have caricatured
I'm not entirely sure you're serious, but on his day Reagan was world-class. For various reasons I was not a fan but his diction was good and he knew how to speak.
Comments
We all know you are drawn to smug, talentless chancers with iffy tax affairs, so your admiration for Mr Carr is sadly unsurprising. At least he's only responsible for 9 out of 10 cats do Countdown and not Brexit.
They should be paid for by taxes.
The system that existed in 1911 hasn't existed since WWII. Prewar taxes should have been abolished with the end of the prewar settlement and it is long overdue that everybody pays the same rate in taxation.
If you want to create a new contribution system then great, advocate for that. But the 1911 system hasn't existed for a long time and doesn't exist today.
My boy Dave (PBUH) did it with 6%.
went to Gonville & Caiushas the same outrageous sense of humour as me.I'm not keen on his plastic surgery though.
Since this is a genuine contribution based system, that money goes not to HMRC in taxation but to their pension provider instead.
Contributions should go to whichever company is covering the service they're contributing towards.
Whatever is left for taxation should be covered by all taxpayers.
But there's pretty decent evidence that the S will not be U, N.
(Also, ten months ago was just before the sinking of Sturgeon. The fall of the SNP has a massive effect on what Labour need to do in England.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm0kpZTDXd0
Brian Clough started at Synthonia before National Service.
a) a much bigger pre-arranged direct debit has just come out of our bank account and
b) the envelope had "repair fund" written on it, but very hastily scribbled out.
One of the few things I have gotten wrong spectacularly was one element of the 2015 GE.
I thought there was no chance of the Tories being the largest party let alone win a majority if UKIP polled double digits yet that's what happened.
We also need to move beyond the fully tax funded nationalised NHS and have more insurance funding for healthcare like most western nations
But at being President he was really good no matter what Spitting Image may have caricatured
https://peterwyngarde.uk/2016/06/27/review-night-conspirators/
In the meantime, NI is a tax and should be merged with other taxes.
If you want to ringfence NI to only go to what is genuinely contributed towards, then great, the amount is zero, so it can be abolished.
Contrast with JFK:
“Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
In which case the sacking of Suella was critical. In which case the "We guarantee we will get people to Rwanda" pledges afterwards are a core part of their GE strategy. Which we know only finds support in their remaining bastions of support.
I now have a busy few weeks planning the work, before we clear Hogmanay and work the plan. Would rather be me than Matt Vickers right now...!
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/election/2015-05-07/results/Location/Region/South West
Brutal system, FPTP.
Like Thatcher, a decidedly mixed legacy; and arguably a more toxic one.
Great figurehead, but the substance was pretty dodgy.
But the NOM area is immense and plausible. Tories lose absolute control of events if they lose 41 seats (easy). Labour only gain control of events if they gain 123 seats (hard).
The idea that UKIP voters were ex-Tories is unsubstantiated nonsense.
Third party none-of-the-above, I-dislike-you-all voters went from one third party to another.
Most voters give an infinitesimal fraction of the attention that we all give to politics, so one third party to another is a like for like swap, even if they have completely different policies.
Do you want to pay for more public sector fat cats?
Do you want to pay for more IT failures?
Do you want to pay for more wokery and control freakery?
Do you want to pay for procurement failures and white elephants?
Do you want to pay for more quangos?
Do you want the government to give your money to dodgy charities?
The problem I have with politicians' promises is that they tend to focus on inputs e.g. we'll recruit 10,000 new police rather than outputs e.g. we'll cut waiting lists (Rishi is one of the few who has focussed on outputs and he is failing).
Let me pose a question: if the government was a public limited company, would you be willing to buy their shares? if the answer is no, then why would you be happy to hand over more tax?
Just to be clear, because that would be an unavoidable outcome.
@POLITICOEurope
·
21m
🚨 BREAKING: Far-right leader Geert Wilders has become the shock winner of the Dutch election, according to an exit poll.
We have chucked an unprecedented proportion of GDP at public services. A 7.5% drop in public service productivity has been the outcome. The CS and quangos are fat, swollen with overpaid senior managers (4000+ Directors in the CS excluding quangos) and full of hopeless idlers at every level. Significant cuts would do no harm at all.
Your logic is that you like round holes, so therefore we should keep this square peg.
If you want a contributory system, create one. NI is not it, so it should be abolished.
Why would voters in shitholes change their minds and decide to vote Tory again? Plan A is 240502, but why? The least worst scenario?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Act_1946
and we'll be out of step as usual
NICs cover about a half of healthcare plus old age pensions plus JSA.
So, we’d need to more or less halve all of these.
JSA becomes £34 per week for under-25s and £43 per week for over-25s.
To maintain spending in healthcare, we’ll need to action his vision of more insurance funding from people for that, requiring an average of an extra £3200 per household across the UK.
And Old Age Pensions would drop to about £5,300 per year.
But we’d free up a good 130-140 billion to spend on other things (but we must NOT spend it on healthcare or pensions to top those up, because otherwise we break that essential ringfencing that’s apparently so crucial).
You should propose it at the next Tory Conference. I’m sure it will be a great hit.
@hendopolis
·
11m
FT UK: Tax burden surges despite Hunt cuts #TomorrowsPapersToday
Last i seem to recall reading about Wilders is he lived in a steel box room due to the level of threats to his life.
Trump remains by a country mile the greatest threat to world peace and democracy though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUIdrT9eRA
Your analogy is facile; the UK is not a a plc, I am not investing for a financial return.
Because if we somehow manage to spend the £300 billion+ on those various things with £172 billion in NICs and the remaining £130 billion+ funded by other means - it's not exactly a ringfenced fund, is it?
The level in it will always be taken to the needed level by general taxation. And, as money is fungible, it's not at all a ringfenced fund, given that the only issue is the amount of extra funding that's needed from general taxation.
It's taxation. Doesn't matter what you want to handwave about 1911, or what is supposed to be. Cut NICs and you cut tax paid by people and income to the Treasury. And, I'll note, that despite NI cuts, we don't see either a pension cut or a slashing of NHS budgets - which would have to occur if things did follow your fantasy of them.
In fact, you should now be calling loudly for a cut to pensions, if you want to be consistent, given that we've just seen a cut to NI.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=gbp+eur&cvid=76cfdc7fb4504cdf83aa2c7f688feb80&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgYIARAAGEAyBggCEAAYQDIGCAMQABhAMgYIBBAAGEAyBggFEAAYQDIGCAYQABhAMgYIBxAAGEAyBggIEAAYQDIHCAkQRRj8VdIBCDE4NTFqMGoxqAIAsAIA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531
Gentle downward trend during the speech, but nothing too exciting.
Or do you accept that pensions are not-contributory and should be paid for out of general taxation?
Taxes have to go up somewhere to make-up the difference - so it makes sense to target ones that result in a shared burden rather than making working age people even poorer to keep their parents in the style they are accustomed to, and maintain what has long been a political fiction.
·
'Nov 22
A reminder to progressives everywhere - the continued threat of the far-right is real and on our doorstep.
The next year is going to be pivotal for standing up for and defending our values - in London, in Europe and across the world.'
https://x.com/SadiqKhan/status/1727436959256326500?s=20
https://x.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1727429763734864213?s=20
At this rate Farage might soon decide it's time for the UK to consider rejoining the EU.
We would also cut the NHS budget paid for by taxpayers to only those unable to afford insurance
https://x.com/KyivIndependent/status/1727447736021115223?s=20
Another cuckoo in the nest.
Great, abolish National Insurance for working age people today and pay pensions out of the pot that was contributed to.
Problem solved.
Whilst it still does some things reasonably well, from a financial, an administrative and an organisational point of view UK PLC is failing extremely badly. Sacking the board might (will) help but the problems are more fundamental and concern the whole basis of the organisation, its operating procedures, aims and structure.
This is also a problem for many other first world countries. The US being one of the most obvious and extreme.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/event/politics/specials/specials/specials/225860312/all-markets
I imagine this was prompted by tonight's IACGMOOH.
This is a very good move in the long term although not sure it will be very helpful when trying to negotiate hostage releases in the short term.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
https://www.trouw.nl/verkiezingen/tweede-kamerverkiezingen-2023-volg-hier-de-uitslagen~be91966c/?referrer=https://www.google.com/