Glancing at the R&W data tonight - 71% either certain or very likely to vote with only 6% Definite non voters and 7% Probable non voters so another pollster suggesting a very hight turnout.
Among the 94% (excluding the Definite non voters), it's 37% Labour, 23% Conservative, 11% LD, 11% DK. 9% Reform and 5% Green.
The 2019 Conservative vote splits 55% Conservative, 15% Reform, 13% Labour and 12% DK.
Deltapoll keeps with the current herding and a 16-point Labour lead (43-27) with the LDs on 13.
The last four polls have all come in about the same - Labour have slipped back from the mid 40s to the low 40s while the Conservatives remain in the mid 20s.
With barely a third of Reform voters likely to return to the Conservatives, it still looks like around 30% at best for Sunak's party.
14% swing Conservative to Labour on the R&W headline figures.
Today's measures to cut immigration targeted at Reform voters
If that is the reason - it ain’t enough.
It cuts the figure from 750,000 to 400,000 (say).
Which to your typical reform voter is still 400,000 too many so an abject failure
That's exactly the problem with these policies. They further alienate people on the center right, while utterly failing to address the desires of the RefUK end of the spectrum.
The vast majority of centre right voters want to reduce immigration like ReformUK voters, even many working class Labour voters want to cut immigration
You seem to have confused Centre with far / facist
Calling anyone who wants to reduce immigration 'Fascist' is why Leave won the referendum in 2016
No any Brit can marry a foreigner provided the foreigner earns over £38k a year or is in a shortage occupation
So someone like my father - a doctor - marrying a foreign woman who chooses to stay at home to bring up children would now be unable to do so. If such a rule had been in place, he would have left England. So rather than gain a skilled migrant Britain would have lost one and 2 skilled children who have also contributed a load of taxes to this country.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
I thought you lot were in favour of traditional stable families.
Is there anyone left in the Tory party able to think through the consequences of what they announce? Anyone at all?
Well would have freed up some housing and demand for public services.
Seriously though I think the annual minimum gross income for the foreign spouse and their UK partner so the spouse gets a visa stays at £18,600.
As usual, you've come up with a pile of ill-informed crap.
From the BBC: A UK citizen who marries a non-UK citizen will not be able to being their new spouse to the UK to live with them unless the UK citizen is earning £38,700. “We will ensure people only bring dependants whom they can support financially, by raising the minimum income for family visas to the same threshold as the minimum salary threshold for Skilled Workers, £38,700,” he said.
Google "family visa" if you don't understand what it is.
Absolutely appalling . Punishing UK citizens for falling in love with a non Brit .
Absolutely appalling its not punishing anyone simple fact is people cost the state money in nhs costs, policing costs , housing costs etc.
If you set the bar low and people are coming over costing more in services and infrastructre like housing than the primary is paying in tax then do you expect all those things to be less strained or more strained?
People like you are always complaining services are underfunded and I agree.....adding to the burden by allowing people to come which compared to tax paid by them increases the costs of services and infrastructure than there primary pays in tax merely adds to the strain. You can't have it both ways sorry
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make it illegal for couples earning less that £38,000 to have children?
Why should the poor be allowed to being people into the world "costing more in services and infrastructure"?
Well they can't get UC and tax credits now for more than 2 children
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
As we know, everybody is in favour of higher taxes until they have to pay them.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Not really. For two reasons, the first being the low British birth rate in the nineties, so having second generation effects at present, with an uptick in the noughties. The second reason is that life is not infinitely extendable, indeed in some demographics is stalled, if not actually falling.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Broadly, there are four ways out of this.
People can work longer and retire later.
People can pay quite a bit more tax.
People can accept and prepare for higher immigration than they would like.
People can watch as public health and social care degrade some more, probably meaning they have to pay through the nose yo go private.
Various combinations of those work, too.
But the core Conservative vote will be up in arms about any of them.
Every other non-UK alternative (Netflix, CNN, YouTube) cannot replace it because of its parochial nature
So although I am comfortable with discussions of alternate funding models and its scope, I would regret the departure of the BBC. In fact, given their recent gutting of its news programmes and journalist staff, its news/current affairs/documentaries funding should be expanded not contracted.
Having now definitively settled the matter, you can now speak of something else. You're welcome.
The direction of travel of the BBC and its fate is not only a cause and consequence of something but also a symptom.
Viewcode says we need something to unite us as a nation. Maybe. But it does not follow that this will actually occur.
The BBC was a candidate for this. PB alone indicates this is no more. Other candidates abound or once did; each person can make their own commentary:
The Crown/Crown in Parliament Christian culture/church The NHS Effortless superiority of being top dog The good chaps theory of government Empire The anglophone world Common law and legal system An incorruptible civil order 'No sex please we're British' Our traditions of policing by consent A locally spread out aristocracy with obligations as well as rights Stiff upper lip/reserve John Stuart Mill 'On Liberty' The Times/Oxford/Cambridge 'Fair play' or 'It's not cricket' The threat from Vikings/Normans/The French/The Germans/The Russians/Johnny Foreigner.
FWIW I struggle to identify now what would hold us together as a nation, unless it is a literati writing endless articles Why Oh Why on the loss of one or more of the above. Because of reasons.
What should hold us together is a tolerance of difference as long as you comply to the british values which i would list as believing we are all equally human and worthy of respect regardless of colour, creed ,sexuality or biological sex. A belief that the same law should apply to all and last but not least in my view not trying to make others conform to our views unless they violate the previous
Lol - when have those ever been universal British values?
I didn't claim they were universal, I stated what I believed are british values and I do believe most here hold pretty much those views. The fact there are exceptions means nothing. You won't find universal values anywhere....but I do think probably 80% of people would nod along to those I stated
What about Britishness holds those values? Like - even modern Britain does not have a society or even a social norm to uphold those values.
Britishness - in my mind - has as core values a deference to power (whether that be working class crab bucket mentality, or elitist arrogance), a weird exceptionalism (typically based in the Empire, but also as a kind of semi-mythic figure of enlightenment and giver of natural justice to the world) as well as a general view that "things are shit, they deserve to be shit", and "it was shit when I was young and it didn't do me any harm".
Stick your Britishness up yer jacksie
LOL. Malcolm, we'd miss you.
I rarely agree with Malcolm however on this he is right....I don't recognise any of this crap 148grss came out with in anyone I have ever known
You haven't come across elite arrogance or weird exceptionalism or crab bucket mentality in anyone you have ever known? Really? That's great news if true.
I don't think I have. Well not the first two, anyway. I'm not sure what crab bucket mentality is.
I had to google it tbf. But c'mon, no elite arrogance in anybody you've ever met? I can only think you've got a special aura that stops any of that nonsense when you're around. Like they say Nelson Mandela had.
Perhaps it's something you only get in that London. *smug Mancunian emoji*
But no, hardly. At least, the number of non-arrogant elite people I've met vastly outweighs the number of arrogant people I've met. I can think of exactly three arrogant-elite people I've met - two QCs and some drunk fella in a suit who was chatting up one of the PAs at our work Christmas meal 16 years ago. But they've been remarkable largely because they were so unusual. Even among QCs/KCs that I've met, arrogance was not the norm.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Yes.
I'd also shift the responsibility for funding social care to central government so they can't hide behind opaque local authority grants.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Broadly, there are four ways out of this.
People can work longer and retire later.
People can pay quite a bit more tax.
People can accept and prepare for higher immigration than they would like.
People can watch as public health and social care degrade some more, probably meaning they have to pay through the nose yo go private.
Various combinations of those work, too.
But the core Conservative vote will be up in arms about any of them.
I'm happy with any of the first three. It's Tory voters who can't accept the reality of our demographic situation. I'm sick of having to pander to people who basically just can't add up.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Broadly, there are four ways out of this.
People can work longer and retire later.
People can pay quite a bit more tax.
People can accept and prepare for higher immigration than they would like.
People can watch as public health and social care degrade some more, probably meaning they have to pay through the nose yo go private.
Various combinations of those work, too.
But the core Conservative vote will be up in arms about any of them.
People can also do nothing then die before it all goes completely to hell, thus avoiding the problem.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Broadly, there are four ways out of this.
People can work longer and retire later.
People can pay quite a bit more tax.
People can accept and prepare for higher immigration than they would like.
People can watch as public health and social care degrade some more, probably meaning they have to pay through the nose yo go private.
Various combinations of those work, too.
But the core Conservative vote will be up in arms about any of them.
People can also do nothing then die before it all goes completely to hell, thus avoiding the problem.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Broadly, there are four ways out of this.
People can work longer and retire later.
People can pay quite a bit more tax.
People can accept and prepare for higher immigration than they would like.
People can watch as public health and social care degrade some more, probably meaning they have to pay through the nose yo go private.
Various combinations of those work, too.
But the core Conservative vote will be up in arms about any of them.
Well put. Personally, I'm massively enthusiastic about option 1. Longer life expectancies are terrific news. But they're only terrific news if we use some of the years gifted to us productively. Doing so is a win for individuals AND a win for society.
Oliver Dowden's State of the Nation address after 13 years in office.
Total meltdown could be looming! Happy New Year!
I was talking to someone involved with the energy market recently and they described the conversation they'd had with a UK government minister on energy and the link between renewable/electric prices vs. gas. Went along the lines of :
Person: I'd like to arrange a meeting abou.... Minister: Nope Person: We have this paper to move forwar... Minister: Nope Person: But... you asked us to look into... Minister: Nope Person: An... email? Minister: Nope
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Not really. For two reasons, the first being the low British birth rate in the nineties, so having second generation effects at present, with an uptick in the noughties. The second reason is that life is not infinitely extendable, indeed in some demographics is stalled, if not actually falling.
But if despite all that we're still seeing tge population growing we're causing ourselves a problem. I do take the argument for some immigration to mitigate the impacts of low birth rates. It'd be a problem if we were in China's boots. But we should be aiming for nothing more than population stability. What we've had for the last 20 years has been population growth unprecedented in British history, either relatively or absolutely.
New visa stuff is a bloody disaster for care sector imho.
Have they any idea what is happening, staff-wise, in care homes?
See:
Mike Padgham, the chair of the Independent Care Group which runs several care homes in North Yorkshire tells us: “Well I think we are going to find more businesses fail, care homes closing.
BBC News
I agree it's a disaster as things stand, but should it be?
Should these jobs not be well paid enough to attract UK residents to take them? E.g. a material step up from stacking shelves at supermarkets or other low skill jobs at or above minimum wage.
Of course the implication is the cost of care would rise, and the state or those under care would shoulder the cost of that, but that's how things should be.
Our migration policy shouldn't be determined just because there are business models that are reliant on an endless stream of cheap labour from overseas.
Very well put. I was trying to find the words to articulate this and you've saved me the bother. Immigration is a bit of a ponzi scheme. It will be expensive to get out of it but tge longer we leave it the more expensive it will be.
You're happy to see taxes and/or borrowing go up to cover the sharp increase in social care costs that the state necessarily has to cover for the majority (63%) who cannot afford their own?
Well yes. Continually avoiding the problem by importing people is just putting off the problem, making it a bigger problem later.
Broadly, there are four ways out of this.
People can work longer and retire later.
People can pay quite a bit more tax.
People can accept and prepare for higher immigration than they would like.
People can watch as public health and social care degrade some more, probably meaning they have to pay through the nose yo go private.
Various combinations of those work, too.
But the core Conservative vote will be up in arms about any of them.
People can also do nothing then die before it all goes completely to hell, thus avoiding the problem.
Why is it that football managers, and football fans, refuse to admit that their side has benefitted from refereeing errors? It’s bugged me for years, and seems to be getting worse
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
Well obviously it does. My inference was that that was part of the point he is making.
How many people who work as carers have dependents?
Because without that information, it's impossible to know whether it's a problem or not.
If only 10% of people who work as carers have dependents, then it's clearly no serious issue. But on the other hand, if it's 80% of people who work as carers have three dependents, then it's a very different matter.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4652027 Recent scholarship shows that informed traders increasingly disguise trades in economically linked securities such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Linking that work to longstanding literature on financial markets’ reactions to military conflict, we document a significant spike in short selling in the principal Israeli-company ETF days before the October 7 Hamas attack. The short selling that day far exceeded the short selling that occurred during numerous other periods of crisis, including the recession following the financial crisis, the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, we identify increases in short selling before the attack in dozens of Israeli companies traded in Tel Aviv....
A similar trend was noted before September 11, if I recall correctly.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
No any Brit can marry a foreigner provided the foreigner earns over £38k a year or is in a shortage occupation
So someone like my father - a doctor - marrying a foreign woman who chooses to stay at home to bring up children would now be unable to do so. If such a rule had been in place, he would have left England. So rather than gain a skilled migrant Britain would have lost one and 2 skilled children who have also contributed a load of taxes to this country.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
I thought you lot were in favour of traditional stable families.
Is there anyone left in the Tory party able to think through the consequences of what they announce? Anyone at all?
Well would have freed up some housing and demand for public services.
Seriously though I think the annual minimum gross income for the foreign spouse and their UK partner so the spouse gets a visa stays at £18,600.
As usual, you've come up with a pile of ill-informed crap.
From the BBC: A UK citizen who marries a non-UK citizen will not be able to being their new spouse to the UK to live with them unless the UK citizen is earning £38,700. “We will ensure people only bring dependants whom they can support financially, by raising the minimum income for family visas to the same threshold as the minimum salary threshold for Skilled Workers, £38,700,” he said.
Google "family visa" if you don't understand what it is.
Well I was wrong on that then, should cut immigration even further as well then or if they really love them the UK citizen can move to the non UK citizen's nation if they earn under £38k
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
Skilled worker threshold for immigrants to rise to £38,700 from £26,000 as now Cleverly announces and health and social care workers unable to bring their families and dependents with them if they come to work here.
Got to say the screams on Twitter from people who want cheap labour (fresh graduates in their case) was a sight to behold.
The screams from care home owners and people who understand university finances are however a very different problem.
Care homes aren’t going to be able to get staff and some universities will be sacking staff everywhere over the next few months to try and remain viable
Start-ups often pay low wages because they cannot afford more as they have yet to develop revenue streams. They get staff on the back of being able to pay higher wages later and offering share options etc. Obviously, if they cannot get the skilled staff they need at wages they can afford now they will not grow and so we will all lose out. But maybe we've had enough of high growth, tech-based start-ups.
Tech startups are not paying £39k to skilled staff. They are paying more.
Source - I’ve worked in startups and know people in the industry.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
But their employer will also be paying £1035 in employer NI so you can add that an top.
So taxes on income would total £6830.
They then have take home pay of £35240 or so. It's hard to see them not purchasing goods and services that don't result in £3170 of that going into tax be it VAT, fuel duty or council tax.
Well obviously it does. My inference was that that was part of the point he is making.
Immigrants coming here to work: taking our jobs. Immigrants coming here to not work: lazy slobs. Immigrants coming here with children: taking a school place. Immigrants coming here without children: money sent home without a trace. Immigrants marrying our women: that's not great. Immigrants marrying their own women: why can't they integrate? Immigrants doing badly: we can't stand. Immigrants doing well: gaining the whip hand. One immigrant living in a house: one house down. Ten immigrants living in a house: shanty town.
I wish these people wouldn't come. But someone has to wipe my bum.
No any Brit can marry a foreigner provided the foreigner earns over £38k a year or is in a shortage occupation
So someone like my father - a doctor - marrying a foreign woman who chooses to stay at home to bring up children would now be unable to do so. If such a rule had been in place, he would have left England. So rather than gain a skilled migrant Britain would have lost one and 2 skilled children who have also contributed a load of taxes to this country.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
I thought you lot were in favour of traditional stable families.
Is there anyone left in the Tory party able to think through the consequences of what they announce? Anyone at all?
Well would have freed up some housing and demand for public services.
Seriously though I think the annual minimum gross income for the foreign spouse and their UK partner so the spouse gets a visa stays at £18,600.
As usual, you've come up with a pile of ill-informed crap.
From the BBC: A UK citizen who marries a non-UK citizen will not be able to being their new spouse to the UK to live with them unless the UK citizen is earning £38,700. “We will ensure people only bring dependants whom they can support financially, by raising the minimum income for family visas to the same threshold as the minimum salary threshold for Skilled Workers, £38,700,” he said.
Google "family visa" if you don't understand what it is.
Well I was wrong on that then, should cut immigration even further as well then or if they really love them the UK citizen can move to the non UK citizen's nation if they earn under £38k
Today is an historic day on PB...
I knew it was cold but I didn't realise hell had frozen over.
"And you say the ordinary people have ice cubes too? Amazing."
First Light Fusion's target, I think ?
Yep which meant trying to come up with a realistic quip has taken some time - that “ice cube” is the target designed to focus the energy to reach critical temperatures and densities
This focusses things so that come the next election you will get the votes of just the true believers.
I thought you might have done something with their fusion technique being inspired by a shrimp...
Well, the SHRIMP device did quite a bit of fusion in the Castle Bravo test.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Considering that life expectancy is much, much, much more than 67, any statistical analysis that relies on ignoring pensions/healthcare and wishing that away on the never-never rather than accruing for those costs is completely flawed.
But then if prior generations had actually accrued for their own pensions, rather than wishing it away on the never-never then expecting the young to pick up the tab, then we'd be in a much healthier position as a country.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
He's phrased it awkwardly, the £4760 was a total, not the amount paid each.
Though the total excludes other taxes like VAT, Employers NIC etc
Why is it that football managers, and football fans, refuse to admit that their side has benefitted from refereeing errors? It’s bugged me for years, and seems to be getting worse
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
I am enjoying watching the Championship without VAR. I have seen some incidents that would have gone to VAR in the PL, some for Leicester, some against but pretty even over the course of the season.
I don't know why the PL are so bad at implementing it.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It's 2387 each - to get to 4760 @Pagan2 doubled the figure while rounding it badly - it should have been 4774
Well obviously it does. My inference was that that was part of the point he is making.
Immigrants coming here to work: taking our jobs. Immigrants coming here to not work: lazy slobs. Immigrants coming here with children: taking a school place. Immigrants coming here without children: money sent home without a trace. Immigrants marrying our women: that's not great. Immigrants marrying their own women: why can't they integrate? Immigrants doing badly: we can't stand. Immigrants doing well: gaining the whip hand. One immigrant living in a house: one house down. Ten immigrants living in a house: shanty town.
I wish these people wouldn't come. But someone has to wipe my bum.
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
As much coming from Nigeria and India each as from the Rest of the World combined suggests there is something fishy going on though.
Why is it that football managers, and football fans, refuse to admit that their side has benefitted from refereeing errors? It’s bugged me for years, and seems to be getting worse
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
I am enjoying watching the Championship without VAR. I have seen some incidents that would have gone to VAR in the PL, some for Leicester, some against but pretty even over the course of the season.
I don't know why the PL are so bad at implementing it.
Arrogance in part.
Other sports have decades of experience in using Third Umpires/DRS or other systems. Cricket has evolved DRS over a period of decades building on successes of using the Third Umpire for instance. Rugby like Football is a fast-paced sport without major breaks like Cricket, which has years of using TV reviews.
Rather than paying attention to what works well in other sports and adopting or adapting it, they've chosen to hubristically reinvent the wheel and insist that Football is sui generis so couldn't possibly learn from what other sports have done.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
He's phrased it awkwardly, the £4760 was a total, not the amount paid each.
Though the total excludes other taxes like VAT, Employers NIC etc
Council tax, fuel duty, road tax, alcohol, tobacco duty...
Why is it that football managers, and football fans, refuse to admit that their side has benefitted from refereeing errors? It’s bugged me for years, and seems to be getting worse
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
I am enjoying watching the Championship without VAR. I have seen some incidents that would have gone to VAR in the PL, some for Leicester, some against but pretty even over the course of the season.
I don't know why the PL are so bad at implementing it.
Arrogance in part.
Other sports have decades of experience in using Third Umpires/DRS or other systems. Cricket has evolved DRS over a period of decades building on successes of using the Third Umpire for instance. Rugby like Football is a fast-paced sport without major breaks like Cricket, which has years of using TV reviews.
Rather than paying attention to what works well in other sports and adopting or adapting it, they've chosen to hubristically reinvent the wheel and insist that Football is sui generis so couldn't possibly learn from what other sports have done.
VAR has made some errors, but my question is; why are the managers/fans of sides who’ve benefitted from those errors so reluctant to say “Yeah, we got lucky there” - they always say “the refs have got a hard job” when they get lucky
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Considering that life expectancy is much, much, much more than 67, any statistical analysis that relies on ignoring pensions/healthcare and wishing that away on the never-never rather than accruing for those costs is completely flawed.
But then if prior generations had actually accrued for their own pensions, rather than wishing it away on the never-never then expecting the young to pick up the tab, then we'd be in a much healthier position as a country.
I'm making the point that there's very different economics between people who come, work and leave, and those who come, work and retire.
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
As much coming from Nigeria and India each as from the Rest of the World combined suggests there is something fishy going on though.
Market forces. Make one system of entry harder, and people come another one. It was securing lorry areas that pushed people to the small boats.
The surest way to stop immigration is by driving up the costs of employment either financially or in terms of workers rights. More costly labour is the spur to investment in productivity improvements.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
If you're going to be accusing me of talking bollocks, you would be well advised to read what I wrote.
You have only included Employee's NICs, not Employers, and you have completely ignored VAT. Plus, of course, additional taxes on any alcohol they drink, cigarettes they smoke, flights they take, and petrol they buy.
The number have been done by the IFS among other people, and I'm happy to dig them out if you like.
Oliver Dowden's State of the Nation address after 13 years in office.
Gridmeltdown presumably caused by an excess of power - can't we just turn off some CCGT stations when needed to ease the load?
I think the grid meltdown is a synonym for (partial) failure, in particular following a cyberattack but recently parts of the country have seen power cuts that were due to lack of capacity or resilience to multiple failures. Dowden referred to cyberattacks from lone hackers using AI (the DPM follows Leon!).
Why is it that football managers, and football fans, refuse to admit that their side has benefitted from refereeing errors? It’s bugged me for years, and seems to be getting worse
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
I am enjoying watching the Championship without VAR. I have seen some incidents that would have gone to VAR in the PL, some for Leicester, some against but pretty even over the course of the season.
I don't know why the PL are so bad at implementing it.
Arrogance in part.
Other sports have decades of experience in using Third Umpires/DRS or other systems. Cricket has evolved DRS over a period of decades building on successes of using the Third Umpire for instance. Rugby like Football is a fast-paced sport without major breaks like Cricket, which has years of using TV reviews.
Rather than paying attention to what works well in other sports and adopting or adapting it, they've chosen to hubristically reinvent the wheel and insist that Football is sui generis so couldn't possibly learn from what other sports have done.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with VAR in principle. In fact, it is a good thing, or ought to be, but it has been so badly administered that the game would be better off without it.
This tells you everything you need to know about the administrators of the game, if you didn't know it already.
Why is it that football managers, and football fans, refuse to admit that their side has benefitted from refereeing errors? It’s bugged me for years, and seems to be getting worse
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
I am enjoying watching the Championship without VAR. I have seen some incidents that would have gone to VAR in the PL, some for Leicester, some against but pretty even over the course of the season.
I don't know why the PL are so bad at implementing it.
Arrogance in part.
Other sports have decades of experience in using Third Umpires/DRS or other systems. Cricket has evolved DRS over a period of decades building on successes of using the Third Umpire for instance. Rugby like Football is a fast-paced sport without major breaks like Cricket, which has years of using TV reviews.
Rather than paying attention to what works well in other sports and adopting or adapting it, they've chosen to hubristically reinvent the wheel and insist that Football is sui generis so couldn't possibly learn from what other sports have done.
VAR has made some errors, but my question is; why are the managers/fans of sides who’ve benefitted from those errors so reluctant to say “Yeah, we got lucky there” - they always say “the refs have got a hard job” when they get lucky
Isn't it that fans are not free of bias in these judgements? 🤔
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It's 2387 each - to get to 4760 @Pagan2 doubled the figure while rounding it badly - it should have been 4774
terribly sorry i was 14£ out because of my rounding
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
As much coming from Nigeria and India each as from the Rest of the World combined suggests there is something fishy going on though.
Market forces. Make one system of entry harder, and people come another one. It was securing lorry areas that pushed people to the small boats.
The surest way to stop immigration is by driving up the costs of employment either financially or in terms of workers rights. More costly labour is the spur to investment in productivity improvements.
So you're in favour of raising the visa threshold figure then for wages, driving up the costs of employment for those who want to hire migrants then?
Not that we should be seeking to stop immigration at all. Immigration is in general a good thing.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It's 2387 each - to get to 4760 @Pagan2 doubled the figure while rounding it badly - it should have been 4774
terribly sorry i was 14£ out because of my rounding
Dude:
You totally fucking missed the point that there are other taxes paid. So, stop patting yourself on the back, when you clearly, obviously, and demonstrably wrong.
I’ve not hated a government more than the current one. Absolute cretins.
I’m really not looking forward to the care sector imploding next year. Not uncommon for councils to be paying in excess of 7k a week for some placements, which will only increase after todays announcement
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
As much coming from Nigeria and India each as from the Rest of the World combined suggests there is something fishy going on though.
Not sure I'm that shocked; two big countries, currently mid income but with a growing middle class. Unambiguously rich countries have a lot more local HE provision, and unambiguously poor countries have too few people who can afford it.
Besides, it's also government policy. This is from the 2021 update to the government's International Education Strategy;
Action 1 (2021): The International Education Champion’s immediate priority countries are: India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Nigeria. These priorities reflect where there is significant potential for growth and where the Champion could both open up opportunities and address barriers to that potential. Other important regional markets for the International Education Champion will include Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, Europe, China and Hong Kong.
This work will focus on increasing education exports, diversifying the recruitment base for international students, and addressing market access barriers, such as mutual recognition of online and blended (a combination of offline and online) education provision. Sir Steve’s activity will complement relevant government ministerial visits and HM Trade Envoy promotional work.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
The 4760 is for both on 20k not each
Are immigrants exempt from paying VAT? Or Council Tax? ...
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
As much coming from Nigeria and India each as from the Rest of the World combined suggests there is something fishy going on though.
Market forces. Make one system of entry harder, and people come another one. It was securing lorry areas that pushed people to the small boats.
The surest way to stop immigration is by driving up the costs of employment either financially or in terms of workers rights. More costly labour is the spur to investment in productivity improvements.
So you're in favour of raising the visa threshold figure then for wages, driving up the costs of employment for those who want to hire migrants then?
Not that we should be seeking to stop immigration at all. Immigration is in general a good thing.
No, I am suggesting that we raise the cost to employers of employing a worker, either by raising employers NI, or wages or both. It would also help to make it harder to fire people, therefore making employers more selective. This obviously helps British workers.
When I was young the problem was mass unemployment, but those days are gone. The problem now is Labour shortages driving immigration. We need different labour market solutions to the 1980's because things have swung too far in favour of employers.
We might find an unemployment rate about double the current one would be about right. For a labour market to work there needs to be an incentive to train, to upskill and for internal migration.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It's 2387 each - to get to 4760 @Pagan2 doubled the figure while rounding it badly - it should have been 4774
terribly sorry i was 14£ out because of my rounding
Dude:
You totally fucking missed the point that there are other taxes paid. So, stop patting yourself on the back, when you clearly, obviously, and demonstrably wrong.
And when they calculate where you are tax neutral they dont take into account those things so I was comparing like with like. And on the subject of vat....most of their disposable after tax will be on rent , power and food...0% vat, 5% vat and 0%vat
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
As much coming from Nigeria and India each as from the Rest of the World combined suggests there is something fishy going on though.
Market forces. Make one system of entry harder, and people come another one. It was securing lorry areas that pushed people to the small boats.
The surest way to stop immigration is by driving up the costs of employment either financially or in terms of workers rights. More costly labour is the spur to investment in productivity improvements.
So you're in favour of raising the visa threshold figure then for wages, driving up the costs of employment for those who want to hire migrants then?
Not that we should be seeking to stop immigration at all. Immigration is in general a good thing.
No, I am suggesting that we raise the cost to employers of employing a worker, either by raising employers NI, or wages or both. It would also help to make it harder to fire people, therefore making employers more selective. This obviously helps British workers.
When I was young the problem was mass unemployment, but those days are gone. The problem now is Labour shortages driving immigration. We need different labour market solutions to the 1980's because things have swung too far in favour of employers.
We might find an unemployment rate about double the current one would be about right. For a labour market to work there needs to be an incentive to train, to upskill and for internal migration.
You appear to be advocating a dose of early-80s Thatcherism.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It's 2387 each - to get to 4760 @Pagan2 doubled the figure while rounding it badly - it should have been 4774
terribly sorry i was 14£ out because of my rounding
You picked the wrong post of mine to quote - the other one pointed out an extra £2070 in Employer NI which employing them would generate in tax.
it's then very unlikely that the £35,226 the couple received in take home pay would not generate £3556 in tax when you look at fuel duty, road tax, VAT, council tax...
It does undermine the idea that immigration can be used as a quick fix for the dependency ratio.
Worth pulling in some figures
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
Those figures can't be the full picture because there were 152,980 visas given to dependants of students alone.
Out of interest is there anything in Cleverly's announcement to stop students bringing dependents into the country?
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Because they pay through the nose to come here, universities and the national balance of payments need the fee income, and if we tell them they can't bring their families, they will go elsewhere?
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
As much coming from Nigeria and India each as from the Rest of the World combined suggests there is something fishy going on though.
Market forces. Make one system of entry harder, and people come another one. It was securing lorry areas that pushed people to the small boats.
The surest way to stop immigration is by driving up the costs of employment either financially or in terms of workers rights. More costly labour is the spur to investment in productivity improvements.
So you're in favour of raising the visa threshold figure then for wages, driving up the costs of employment for those who want to hire migrants then?
Not that we should be seeking to stop immigration at all. Immigration is in general a good thing.
No, I am suggesting that we raise the cost to employers of employing a worker, either by raising employers NI, or wages or both. It would also help to make it harder to fire people, therefore making employers more selective. This obviously helps British workers.
When I was young the problem was mass unemployment, but those days are gone. The problem now is Labour shortages driving immigration. We need different labour market solutions to the 1980's because things have swung too far in favour of employers.
We might find an unemployment rate about double the current one would be about right. For a labour market to work there needs to be an incentive to train, to upskill and for internal migration.
You appear to be advocating a dose of early-80s Thatcherism.
Not quite! I Am suggesting that a higher rate of unemployment is an essential lubrication to an economy.
I am advocating higher pay (not abolishing wage councils) and also increasing workers protections rather than deregulation.
During the Thatcher years, and other periods of mass unemployment there was much less immigration, even in years like the late Eighties or late Thirties when the economy was growing strongly. Indeed the Eighties was the last time we had net emigration.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It's 2387 each - to get to 4760 @Pagan2 doubled the figure while rounding it badly - it should have been 4774
terribly sorry i was 14£ out because of my rounding
Dude:
You totally fucking missed the point that there are other taxes paid. So, stop patting yourself on the back, when you clearly, obviously, and demonstrably wrong.
And when they calculate where you are tax neutral they dont take into account those things so I was comparing like with like. And on the subject of vat....most of their disposable after tax will be on rent , power and food...0% vat, 5% vat and 0%vat
I doubt £35,000 would mainly go in rent, power and fuel. Rent would be £20,000 max probably max £12,000 but council tax would be £1500 or so...
leaving only another £2000 of tax to find in their other spending...
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
Dont talk bollocks please you are better than that a person earning 20k a year pays the following 1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
To be fair 4760 x 2 = 9520 so “10k” is a reasonable approximation
It's 2387 each - to get to 4760 @Pagan2 doubled the figure while rounding it badly - it should have been 4774
terribly sorry i was 14£ out because of my rounding
Dude:
You totally fucking missed the point that there are other taxes paid. So, stop patting yourself on the back, when you clearly, obviously, and demonstrably wrong.
And when they calculate where you are tax neutral they dont take into account those things so I was comparing like with like. And on the subject of vat....most of their disposable after tax will be on rent , power and food...0% vat, 5% vat and 0%vat
Of course they do.
Tax neutral "in the moment" is simply going to be how much taxes they pay in the year. And my c. 25% number is going to be about right. And I know this because this is a calculation that has been done many times, by many people across the political spectrum, and they all come to about the same answer.
Why is it that football managers, and football fans, refuse to admit that their side has benefitted from refereeing errors? It’s bugged me for years, and seems to be getting worse
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
I am enjoying watching the Championship without VAR. I have seen some incidents that would have gone to VAR in the PL, some for Leicester, some against but pretty even over the course of the season.
I don't know why the PL are so bad at implementing it.
Arrogance in part.
Other sports have decades of experience in using Third Umpires/DRS or other systems. Cricket has evolved DRS over a period of decades building on successes of using the Third Umpire for instance. Rugby like Football is a fast-paced sport without major breaks like Cricket, which has years of using TV reviews.
Rather than paying attention to what works well in other sports and adopting or adapting it, they've chosen to hubristically reinvent the wheel and insist that Football is sui generis so couldn't possibly learn from what other sports have done.
VAR has made some errors, but my question is; why are the managers/fans of sides who’ve benefitted from those errors so reluctant to say “Yeah, we got lucky there” - they always say “the refs have got a hard job” when they get lucky
Isn't it that fans are not free of bias in these judgements? 🤔
Even when the officials admit the mistake??? Seems crazy
Comments
PB Tories will no doubt be relieved both him and his fiancee are of British nationality!
https://x.com/amanpour/status/1731745533474074663?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ
People can work longer and retire later.
People can pay quite a bit more tax.
People can accept and prepare for higher immigration than they would like.
People can watch as public health and social care degrade some more, probably meaning they have to pay through the nose yo go private.
Various combinations of those work, too.
But the core Conservative vote will be up in arms about any of them.
But no, hardly. At least, the number of non-arrogant elite people I've met vastly outweighs the number of arrogant people I've met.
I can think of exactly three arrogant-elite people I've met - two QCs and some drunk fella in a suit who was chatting up one of the PAs at our work Christmas meal 16 years ago. But they've been remarkable largely because they were so unusual.
Even among QCs/KCs that I've met, arrogance was not the norm.
Assuming the couple aren't claiming benefits, then you would be surprised how much tax they pay. Between employee's and employer's NICs and VAT, they'll still likely be sending a quarter of their headline earnings to the Exchequer.
If you assume they both earn £10/hour, work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, then that's a combined income of £40,000, and tax generated of £10,000.
For people who work and do not receive benefits, the number who are net recipients of Treasury largesse is much smaller than you would think. (And this is entirely logical when you think about it. Those interest payments - for example - are going out irrespective.)
Of course, this all flips round if people retire in the UK. Then their health care and pension costs become signficant.
I'd also shift the responsibility for funding social care to central government so they can't hide behind opaque local authority grants.
Simon Cox
@SimonFRCox
Cleverly’s complaint that 75% of care workers dependants aren’t working is deliberate deceit - dependants includes *children*.
Personally, I'm massively enthusiastic about option 1.
Longer life expectancies are terrific news. But they're only terrific news if we use some of the years gifted to us productively. Doing so is a win for individuals AND a win for society.
Person: I'd like to arrange a meeting abou....
Minister: Nope
Person: We have this paper to move forwar...
Minister: Nope
Person: But... you asked us to look into...
Minister: Nope
Person: An... email?
Minister: Nope
It's f*cking abysmal.
I do take the argument for some immigration to mitigate the impacts of low birth rates. It'd be a problem if we were in China's boots. But we should be aiming for nothing more than population stability. What we've had for the last 20 years has been population growth unprecedented in British history, either relatively or absolutely.
There have been numerous VAR errors this season, the PGMOL have apologised for a few, yet the only person who admitted their side were fortunate was Erling Haaland, when Nathan Ake’s goal vs Fulham was incorrectly allowed.
Do managers think that if they admit to getting a decision in their favour, the refs will give close calls against them in the future?
Because without that information, it's impossible to know whether it's a problem or not.
If only 10% of people who work as carers have dependents, then it's clearly no serious issue. But on the other hand, if it's 80% of people who work as carers have three dependents, then it's a very different matter.
Remember it's 65,000 visas for partners out of 1.3million immigrants into the country.
1484 income tax and 891 ni for a total of 2387 total. A couple earning 20k each will pay 4760 or so not 10k
(Am I alone in wondering why we ever allow that anyway?)
Source - I’ve worked in startups and know people in the industry.
So taxes on income would total £6830.
They then have take home pay of £35240 or so. It's hard to see them not purchasing goods and services that don't result in £3170 of that going into tax be it VAT, fuel duty or council tax.
Immigrants coming here to not work: lazy slobs.
Immigrants coming here with children: taking a school place.
Immigrants coming here without children: money sent home without a trace.
Immigrants marrying our women: that's not great.
Immigrants marrying their own women: why can't they integrate?
Immigrants doing badly: we can't stand.
Immigrants doing well: gaining the whip hand.
One immigrant living in a house: one house down.
Ten immigrants living in a house: shanty town.
I wish these people wouldn't come.
But someone has to wipe my bum.
EJ Thribb (17.5mn immigrants).
Rather more than was wanted, actually.
Lithium 7 says hello.
But then if prior generations had actually accrued for their own pensions, rather than wishing it away on the never-never then expecting the young to pick up the tab, then we'd be in a much healthier position as a country.
Besides, aren't the Conservatives meant to be the Party Of Family Values?
Though the total excludes other taxes like VAT, Employers NIC etc
I don't know why the PL are so bad at implementing it.
Other sports have decades of experience in using Third Umpires/DRS or other systems. Cricket has evolved DRS over a period of decades building on successes of using the Third Umpire for instance. Rugby like Football is a fast-paced sport without major breaks like Cricket, which has years of using TV reviews.
Rather than paying attention to what works well in other sports and adopting or adapting it, they've chosen to hubristically reinvent the wheel and insist that Football is sui generis so couldn't possibly learn from what other sports have done.
So I don't think we're in disagreement.
The surest way to stop immigration is by driving up the costs of employment either financially or in terms of workers rights. More costly labour is the spur to investment in productivity improvements.
You have only included Employee's NICs, not Employers, and you have completely ignored VAT. Plus, of course, additional taxes on any alcohol they drink, cigarettes they smoke, flights they take, and petrol they buy.
The number have been done by the IFS among other people, and I'm happy to dig them out if you like.
This tells you everything you need to know about the administrators of the game, if you didn't know it already.
Not that we should be seeking to stop immigration at all. Immigration is in general a good thing.
You totally fucking missed the point that there are other taxes paid. So, stop patting yourself on the back, when you clearly, obviously, and demonstrably wrong.
I’m really not looking forward to the care sector imploding next year. Not uncommon for councils to be paying in excess of 7k a week for some placements, which will only increase after todays announcement
Besides, it's also government policy. This is from the 2021 update to the government's International Education Strategy;
Action 1 (2021): The International Education Champion’s immediate priority countries are: India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Nigeria. These priorities reflect where there is significant potential for growth and where the Champion could both open up opportunities and address barriers to that potential. Other important regional markets for the International Education Champion will include Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, Europe, China and Hong Kong.
This work will focus on increasing education exports, diversifying the recruitment base for international students, and addressing market access barriers, such as mutual recognition of online and blended (a combination of offline and online) education provision. Sir Steve’s activity will complement relevant government ministerial visits and HM Trade Envoy promotional work.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-education-strategy-2021-update/international-education-strategy-2021-update-supporting-recovery-driving-growth
The curse of left hand/right hand strikes again.
When I was young the problem was mass unemployment, but those days are gone. The problem now is Labour shortages driving immigration. We need different labour market solutions to the 1980's because things have swung too far in favour of employers.
We might find an unemployment rate about double the current one would be about right. For a labour market to work there needs to be an incentive to train, to upskill and for internal migration.
What my parents were able to do in the 1950's will no longer be possible.
Though millenials! 🙄
Apparently planning a wedding together isn't the same as being engaged 🙃
it's then very unlikely that the £35,226 the couple received in take home pay would not generate £3556 in tax when you look at fuel duty, road tax, VAT, council tax...
I am advocating higher pay (not abolishing wage councils) and also increasing workers protections rather than deregulation.
During the Thatcher years, and other periods of mass unemployment there was much less immigration, even in years like the late Eighties or late Thirties when the economy was growing strongly. Indeed the Eighties was the last time we had net emigration.
leaving only another £2000 of tax to find in their other spending...
I suspect that these arise from social media and dating apps.
Tax neutral "in the moment" is simply going to be how much taxes they pay in the year. And my c. 25% number is going to be about right. And I know this because this is a calculation that has been done many times, by many people across the political spectrum, and they all come to about the same answer.
Rachel Clarke
@doctor_oxford
Current NHS starting salaries:
Junior doctor £32.4k
Nurse £28.4k
Paramedic £28.4k
Midwife £28.4k
Radiographer £28.4k
Healthcare assistant £22.8k
Physiotherapist £28.4k
Dietician £28.4k
Occupational therapist £28.4k
https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1731778733457998106
The German East Africa plan on the other hand...
"They must be registered with CQC"
Erm...
Aren't they already??
What am I missing?
I should bloody well hope so given they have a big majority.
That is the question (TWTAIN)