Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trump will again triumph – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 1 in General
Trump will triumph again – politicalbetting.com

Donald Trump is ineligible for the US presidency under the constitution's insurrection clause, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled.Sky's @Stone_SkyNews has the latest, reporting live from Washington.? https://t.co/VVprTsviHm? Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 pic.twitter.com/AEe7zujaNC

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    edited December 2023

    Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    Shouldn't it be Trump Will Again Triumph?

    First-ish btw
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645

    Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    TWTR?

    Trump. We all thought we were getting boned this morning ☺️
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,127

    LAB: 42% (-1)
    CON: 24% (-1)
    LDEM: 11% (-2)
    REF: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (+1)

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1737375280656699494?t=bDcbQQY-Fdvl7qcqMZQ-8A&s=19

    Dirty sleazy everybody on the slide?
  • Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    Shouldn't it be Trump Will Again Triumph?

    First-ish btw
    Look again.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    Shouldn't it be Trump Will Again Triumph?

    First-ish btw
    Look again.
    It's like magic!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,598
    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,127

    Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    Shouldn't it be Trump Will Again Triumph?

    First-ish btw
    Look again.
    It's like magic!
    Now let's try "Triumph of the will -Trump"
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,904
    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    Really?

    I would have said it doesn't really describe him very well.

    Come Unstuck Next Time would have been better.

    Next time being Georgia.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,147
    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,002
    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    I wouldn’t go that far, but telling tens of millions of people that they’re not allowed to vote for their preferred candidate really isn’t a good look, and edges the country closer to a serious conflict.

    One US commentator last night suggested a replica of the Doomsday Clock, calling it the Civil War Clock. It just edged a little closer to midnight.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,904
    edited December 2023
    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    I'd say that Trump is more likely headed for jail.

    He has just been ruled ineligible to stand for President by the Colorado Supreme Court, as pointed out by TSE, which is one straw in the wind (and will be Appealed to the Supreme Court), and other problematic developments for him have happened in the last few days. I think from briefly following the news that the 'sympatheric' Judge in the Florida documents case has just been heavily slapped down again by her superior court.

    So there is also a question of what Trump-supporting Extreme Right terrorist/militia groups will do - Promise Keepers, Proud Boys etc - by way of violence in those circumstances.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,039
    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Nairns Travels is also excellent and well worth catching.

    It is on Youtube and was shown on the BBC in the late eighties. I believe it was an amalgam of several of his other series.

    Nairn may have been an old soak, he died relatively young of Cirrhosis in quite pitiful circumstances and it was very sad, but he liked Newcastle, so what a guy.
  • Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    I wouldn’t go that far, but telling tens of millions of people that they’re not allowed to vote for their preferred candidate really isn’t a good look, and edges the country closer to a serious conflict.

    One US commentator last night suggested a replica of the Doomsday Clock, calling it the Civil War Clock. It just edged a little closer to midnight.
    Trump and his basket of deplorables started the civil war when they tried to overturn the 2020 election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730
    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    I don't think there's anything undemocratic about telling violent anti-democratic criminals they can't take part in democratic processes.

    The catch - and it is a significant catch - is that although we all know Mr Small One is as guilty as hell of various treasons, strategems and spoils so far he hasn't actually been convicted of any of them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    FPT:
    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising
    almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    That first article is bullshit.

    It basically says an employee can’t increase their hours enough and the rich wouldn’t want to work harder because they make enough money for a good life anyway.

    I will be generous and assume you didn’t read it before posting the link
    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    I can't read the second article (pay walled), but the 1st article doesn't dispute the existence of a Laffer Curve. It's making claims about its shape, specifically that a tax rate of 35% is not over its peak. It actually say that at very high rates (80-90%) there will be a noticeable effect.

    Given our discussion was sparked by the Scottish government going for a marginal rate for some people of 69.5%, rather than denying there is a curve, we could perhaps move on to the more interesting question, namely - is 69.5% over the revenue maximising peak or not?
    Try this for size

    https://ctmirror.org/2018/01/18/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/
    That's a load of nonsense too. It totally ignores value creation by high earner, presuming that if they earn less because of high tax rates, the organisation they work for gets to keep the money they would have paid them, so it doesn't matter that those high earners earn less.

    So imagine a medical consultant decides to only work 3 days a week instead of 5 because of his marginal tax rate. Great, the hospital gets to save 2/5th of his wages. Less great is that he'll only see 3/5ths of the number of patients.

    The best case scenario is that the hospital manage to employ another consultant for 2 days a week at the same rate, and which point the government gets no extra tax revenue, and the hospital gets a load of extra admin from having two people doing one job.

    If there is a shortage of consultants, which it will be if this behaviour is widely replicated, as we've almost just doubled the number required to do the same amount of work, then their wages will rise (supply and demand). Then they will go into high marginal tax sooner... So may decide to only do two days a week, and round the whole doom loop we go again.

    Before long you discover that the results of your high tax policy are to massively increase costs or reduce output for the hospital, whilst raising very little tax. And then you find your consultant working cash in hand on his new "days off" with his mate whose a painter and decorator (don't laugh, I've seen this first hand!).
    A hospital consultant on say, £120k, has their take home pay reduced from £75k to £70k because of an increase in marginal rates... will react by cutting their hours by 40% to end up with a take home pay of (checks) £55k. Right.

    Just as likely is that said hospital consultant will seek to work more hours to maintain the original £75k net.

    As for hospital consultants working cash in hand, don't make me laugh. Even in the building trade, if you find someone who wants to work cash in hand I can pretty much guarantee you've found a cowboy. Good trades won't touch it.
  • ydoethur said:

    Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    Really?

    I would have said it doesn't really describe him very well.

    Come Unstuck Next Time would have been better.

    Next time being Georgia.
    Trump has neither the depth nor the warmth to be one of those.
  • On topic, there’s a better reason why Trump will remain on the ballot and that’s because the legal thinking behind the Colorado SC decision has been rejected at the SC level multiple times.

    Roberts has already ruled over a decade ago - yes before the MAGA SC majority - that the Presidency did not constitute the position of “Officer” and that has been reaffirmed. There is also the small matter Trump hasn’t been convicted by a jury.

    The SC will also be mindful - as will the Democrat -appointed justices - that such decisions can also swing both ways and that it creates bad precedent by encouraging parties to use the law to go after their opponents. That is how democracies truly die.

    At the end of the day, the CSC knows this won’t pass the SC. It’s political posturing and it’s worth noting the CSC is fully appointed by the Governor, meaning that it has a, errr, slight political bias. Even so, the decision only passed 4-3.

    To defeat Trump, you have to beat him at the ballot box.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    I don't think there's anything undemocratic about telling violent anti-democratic criminals they can't take part in democratic processes.

    The catch - and it is a significant catch - is that although we all know Mr Small One is as guilty as hell of various treasons, strategems and spoils so far he hasn't actually been convicted of any of them.
    Indeed that's my issue with this as I mentioned last night. If he's convicted of insurrection, then he should be banned; otherwise, it's a mistake.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    ydoethur said:

    Oopsie, I've just realised the headline spells out an unfortunate acronym.

    Really?

    I would have said it doesn't really describe him very well.

    Come Unstuck Next Time would have been better.

    Next time being Georgia.
    Trump has neither the depth nor the warmth to be one of those.
    It means the same thing...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,831
    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    I wouldn’t go that far, but telling tens of millions of people that they’re not allowed to vote for their preferred candidate really isn’t a good look, and edges the country closer to a serious conflict.

    One US commentator last night suggested a replica of the Doomsday Clock, calling it the Civil War Clock. It just edged a little closer to midnight.
    Trump and his basket of deplorables started the civil war when they tried to overturn the 2020 election.
    That doesn't make it alright to escalate the civil war. That way leads only to utter disaster.

    Prosecute him through the courts, then if he's found guilty lock him up and ban him from standing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    I agree it's strange. How could anyone damage Parliament's reputation right now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,193
    .
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    I wouldn’t go that far, but telling tens of millions of people that they’re not allowed to vote for their preferred candidate really isn’t a good look, and edges the country closer to a serious conflict.

    One US commentator last night suggested a replica of the Doomsday Clock, calling it the Civil War Clock. It just edged a little closer to midnight.
    Threatening a civil war if Trump is barred for insurrection ? Nice one.

    Trump got about 1.4m votes in Colorado, btw.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
  • Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
  • With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    Er... this is beginning to stink more and more:

    Penny Mordaunt: Boris Johnson’s messages vanished from my phone

    Penny Mordaunt has told the Covid inquiry that a series of WhatsApp messages with Boris Johnson mysteriously disappeared from her phone, and that Johnson’s then chief of staff ignored 14 attempts by her to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter.

    In a further twist to the saga of 5,000 WhatsApp messages lost by Johnson, Mordaunt said she was told by Cabinet Office officials it would cost about £40,000 to examine her phone to determine what had happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/19/penny-mordaunt-boris-johnsons-messages-vanished-from-my-phone

    £40,000 to look at her phone?! Kevin from Unlocks4U in the High Street will do it for 20 quid.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,193

    Er... this is beginning to stink more and more:

    Penny Mordaunt: Boris Johnson’s messages vanished from my phone

    Penny Mordaunt has told the Covid inquiry that a series of WhatsApp messages with Boris Johnson mysteriously disappeared from her phone, and that Johnson’s then chief of staff ignored 14 attempts by her to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter.

    In a further twist to the saga of 5,000 WhatsApp messages lost by Johnson, Mordaunt said she was told by Cabinet Office officials it would cost about £40,000 to examine her phone to determine what had happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/19/penny-mordaunt-boris-johnsons-messages-vanished-from-my-phone

    £40,000 to look at her phone?! Kevin from Unlocks4U in the High Street will do it for 20 quid.

    A quote from Mone Phone Ltd, presumably.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
  • Er... this is beginning to stink more and more:

    Penny Mordaunt: Boris Johnson’s messages vanished from my phone

    Penny Mordaunt has told the Covid inquiry that a series of WhatsApp messages with Boris Johnson mysteriously disappeared from her phone, and that Johnson’s then chief of staff ignored 14 attempts by her to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter.

    In a further twist to the saga of 5,000 WhatsApp messages lost by Johnson, Mordaunt said she was told by Cabinet Office officials it would cost about £40,000 to examine her phone to determine what had happened.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/19/penny-mordaunt-boris-johnsons-messages-vanished-from-my-phone

    £40,000 to look at her phone?! Kevin from Unlocks4U in the High Street will do it for 20 quid.

    Who was going to unlock her phone? A partner at Slaughter &* May?

    *They tell me off for using an ampersand in their name.
  • DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Canterbury's gone to the dogs since they started electing Labour MPs.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,214
    Foxy said:


    LAB: 42% (-1)
    CON: 24% (-1)
    LDEM: 11% (-2)
    REF: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (+1)

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1737375280656699494?t=bDcbQQY-Fdvl7qcqMZQ-8A&s=19

    Dirty sleazy everybody on the slide?

    Rounding surge!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    It's a generic description, there are two other current investigations using the same wording:

    https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/complaints-and-investigations/allegations-currently-under-investigation-by-the-commissioner/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,193

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
    A reminder from Sept 2020.

    Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

    TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens."

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1308895705860321283

  • eekeek Posts: 28,590

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    The rumour is that she’s received money from Foreign government
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    edited December 2023
    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Apols - full retraction. Since my home town is Hastings I should be more circumspect.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,214
    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    I think Canterbury’s a pretty decent city. It has one of two shabby streets but the city centre is generally rather attractive. Certainly more so than the almost universally ugly other towns in Kent.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited December 2023
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    The rumour is that she’s received money from Foreign government
    Nonsense, she attended Cambridge University, nothing but patriots from that place.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Canterbury's gone to the dogs since they started electing Labour MPs.
    Cambridge led the way.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,590
    edited December 2023

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    The rumour is that she’s received money from Foreign government
    Nonsense, she attempted Cambridge University, nothing but patriots from that place.
    Yes, but patriots for which country?
    The one paying most?

    A lady of negotiable patriotism?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    edited December 2023

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    The rumour is that she’s received money from Foreign government
    Nonsense, she attended Cambridge University, nothing but patriots from that place.
    Edit: too slow!
  • eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    The rumour is that she’s received money from Foreign government
    Nonsense, she attempted Cambridge University, nothing but patriots from that place.
    Yes, but patriots for which country?
    The UK of course.

    Looking at her bio, she's from South Yorkshire, child of a doctor, Tory, and alumna of the University of Cambridge, I am sorry but that screams brilliance and UK patriot.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67690626

    Abuse at ballet schools - it is shocking but thoroughly unsurprising. The ingredients are all there.

    I passing, there’s a reason why ballet makes such an effective theme for horror (Suspiria being one of the greatest horror movies of all time).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    The rumour is that she’s received money from Foreign government
    Nonsense, she attempted Cambridge University, nothing but patriots from that place.
    Yes, but patriots for which country?
    Are we all Russian to judgement?
  • Ghedebrav said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67690626

    Abuse at ballet schools - it is shocking but thoroughly unsurprising. The ingredients are all there.

    I passing, there’s a reason why ballet makes such an effective theme for horror (Suspiria being one of the greatest horror movies of all time).

    Black Swan too.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    edited December 2023
    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    FPT:

    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising
    almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    That first article is bullshit.

    It basically says an employee can’t increase their hours enough and the rich wouldn’t want to work harder because they make enough money for a good life anyway.

    I will be generous and assume you didn’t read it before posting the link
    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    I can't read the second article (pay walled), but the 1st article doesn't dispute the existence of a Laffer Curve. It's making claims about its shape, specifically that a tax rate of 35% is not over its peak. It actually say that at very high rates (80-90%) there will be a noticeable effect.

    Given our discussion was sparked by the Scottish government going for a marginal rate for some people of 69.5%, rather than denying there is a curve, we could perhaps move on to the more interesting question, namely - is 69.5% over the revenue maximising peak or not?
    Try this for size

    https://ctmirror.org/2018/01/18/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/
    That's a load of nonsense too. It totally ignores value creation by high earner, presuming that if they earn less because of high tax rates, the organisation they work for gets to keep the money they would have paid them, so it doesn't matter that those high earners earn less.

    So imagine a medical consultant decides to only work 3 days a week instead of 5 because of his marginal tax rate. Great, the hospital gets to save 2/5th of his wages. Less great is that he'll only see 3/5ths of the number of patients.

    The best case scenario is that the hospital manage to employ another consultant for 2 days a week at the same rate, and which point the government gets no extra tax revenue, and the hospital gets a load of extra admin from having two people doing one job.

    If there is a shortage of consultants, which it will be if this behaviour is widely replicated, as we've almost just doubled the number required to do the same amount of work, then their wages will rise (supply and demand). Then they will go into high marginal tax sooner... So may decide to only do two days a week, and round the whole doom loop we go again.

    Before long you discover that the results of your high tax policy are to massively increase costs or reduce output for the hospital, whilst raising very little tax. And then you find your consultant working cash in hand on his new "days off" with his mate whose a painter and decorator (don't laugh, I've seen this first hand!).
    A hospital consultant on say, £120k, has their take home pay reduced from £75k to £70k because of an increase in marginal rates... will react by cutting their hours by 40% to end up with a take home pay of (checks) £55k. Right.

    Snip
    Yep that is exactly how people think. We are seeing it loads in all sorts of branches of consulting across lots of indstries and also in employment. When people are getting towards the senior end of their careers they look at lot more closely at work/life balance. And things like the tax trap are what make them decide the time has come to scale back. We saw it with GPs when the new working arangments were introduced and lots of them decided the small amounts of extra money they got just wasn't worth the additional commitments.

    It may not be logical in purely financial terms but such decisions are based value judgements weighing up lots of factors and doing the same work for less money is definitely one that triggers a lot of people to reassess their careers.
    I fully accept it happens, particularly with those later in life, kids left home, mortgaged paid etc., but in return I ask you to recognise that the other scenario also happens: take home pay reduces so I'm going to work harder, longer, find a better job, etc.
  • Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Not yet.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    Ghedebrav said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67690626

    Abuse at ballet schools - it is shocking but thoroughly unsurprising. The ingredients are all there.

    I passing, there’s a reason why ballet makes such an effective theme for horror (Suspiria being one of the greatest horror movies of all time).

    Black Swan too.
    Tbf that's just what Sunak needs right now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Apols - full retraction. Since my home town is Hastings I should be more circumspect.
    Wow, you kept that quiet....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    This is a really strange thing - have we ever had this before?
    The rumour is that she’s received money from Foreign government
    Nonsense, she attempted Cambridge University, nothing but patriots from that place.
    Yes, but patriots for which country?
    Are we all Russian to judgement?
    Rather Blunt this morning
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    edited December 2023
    Is it impossible to comment about Trump without adding to the chaos that fuels him?

    America is in a dark place. It’s tragic. There has to be a way through. I hope they find it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Apols - full retraction. Since my home town is Hastings I should be more circumspect.
    Wow, you kept that quiet....
    So would you.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    IanB2 said:

    Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache after Parliament’s standards watchdog confirmed it had placed Tory MP Miriam Cates under investigation.

    The backbench MP – who represents Penistone and Stocksbridge – is facing claims that she has caused "significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally", according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    Has she been found guilty of making dick jokes? Lowering the penis tone....
    I see what you did there.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,556
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
    A reminder from Sept 2020.

    Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

    TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens."

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1308895705860321283

    They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.

    To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.

    The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.

    We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.

    All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.

    Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
  • So Miriam Cates MP is facing a parliamentary standards probe for attending a "party" inside parliament in December 2020 that the police have already decided does not meet the threshold to investigate.

    Can't believe we're persisting with this nonsense!


    https://twitter.com/freddiesayers/status/1736821631731831042
  • FPT:

    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising
    almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    That first article is bullshit.

    It basically says an employee can’t increase their hours enough and the rich wouldn’t want to work harder because they make enough money for a good life anyway.

    I will be generous and assume you didn’t read it before posting the link
    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    I can't read the second article (pay walled), but the 1st article doesn't dispute the existence of a Laffer Curve. It's making claims about its shape, specifically that a tax rate of 35% is not over its peak. It actually say that at very high rates (80-90%) there will be a noticeable effect.

    Given our discussion was sparked by the Scottish government going for a marginal rate for some people of 69.5%, rather than denying there is a curve, we could perhaps move on to the more interesting question, namely - is 69.5% over the revenue maximising peak or not?
    Try this for size

    https://ctmirror.org/2018/01/18/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/
    That's a load of nonsense too. It totally ignores value creation by high earner, presuming that if they earn less because of high tax rates, the organisation they work for gets to keep the money they would have paid them, so it doesn't matter that those high earners earn less.

    So imagine a medical consultant decides to only work 3 days a week instead of 5 because of his marginal tax rate. Great, the hospital gets to save 2/5th of his wages. Less great is that he'll only see 3/5ths of the number of patients.

    The best case scenario is that the hospital manage to employ another consultant for 2 days a week at the same rate, and which point the government gets no extra tax revenue, and the hospital gets a load of extra admin from having two people doing one job.

    If there is a shortage of consultants, which it will be if this behaviour is widely replicated, as we've almost just doubled the number required to do the same amount of work, then their wages will rise (supply and demand). Then they will go into high marginal tax sooner... So may decide to only do two days a week, and round the whole doom loop we go again.

    Before long you discover that the results of your high tax policy are to massively increase costs or reduce output for the hospital, whilst raising very little tax. And then you find your consultant working cash in hand on his new "days off" with his mate whose a painter and decorator (don't laugh, I've seen this first hand!).
    A hospital consultant on say, £120k, has their take home pay reduced from £75k to £70k because of an increase in marginal rates... will react by cutting their hours by 40% to end up with a take home pay of (checks) £55k. Right.

    Snip
    Yep that is exactly how people think. We are seeing it loads in all sorts of branches of consulting across lots of indstries and also in employment. When people are getting towards the senior end of their careers they look at lot more closely at work/life balance. And things like the tax trap are what make them decide the time has come to scale back. We saw it with GPs when the new working arangments were introduced and lots of them decided the small amounts of extra money they got just wasn't worth the additional commitments.

    It may not be logical in purely financial terms but such decisions are based value judgements weighing up lots of factors and doing the same work for less money is definitely one that triggers a lot of people to reassess their careers.
    I fully accept it happens, particularly with those later in life, kids left home, mortgaged paid etc., but in return I ask you to recognise that the other scenario also happens: take home pay reduces so I'm going to work harder, longer, find a better job, etc.
    Not sure that in the realms of consulting it is that common when you get to the senior end of careers. And how many Hospital Consultants are even able to increase their hours? The few I know seem to be working almost 24/7 these days given the state of the Health Service. (slight exaggeration of course but know what I mean)

    I mean I do get your point but it is predicated on a set of assumptions about the NHS which I think are false, and all on the negative side.
  • With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.

    Difficult balancing act though. I think it’s probably correct to hold the rate for now, but chances they might start to fall earlier than summer now, next year.

  • eekeek Posts: 28,590
    Horrifying stat from Reddit - on the SNP's new tax bands, if you went to Uni in England and then get a job in Scotland earning over £100,000, your marginal top rate of tax is 78.5%

    For postgrads that goes up to 84.5%

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1737380918011006998?s=46&t=cxkq0jndvkhIwWZCCEL3QQ
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
    A reminder from Sept 2020.

    Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

    TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens."

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1308895705860321283

    They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.

    To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.

    The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.

    We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.

    All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.

    Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
    Is sating a toddler by giving him the Presidency of the United States really the way forward?
  • boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
    A reminder from Sept 2020.

    Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

    TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens."

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1308895705860321283

    They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.

    To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.

    The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.

    We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.

    All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.

    Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
    I’d agree with all of that but I think what will be also important is the manner in which he loses - if it is a very tight race with margins in the thousands and there is the same questioning of ballots, particularly Mail-ins (which Jimmy Carter himself said were particularly detrimental), then things could explode.

    Unfortunately, I think there are a fair few of Trump’s opponents in the US who believe that all means justify the end of stopping Trump - and, if that attitude prevails, it really is going to be a sh1tshow.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,556
    DougSeal said:

    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
    A reminder from Sept 2020.

    Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

    TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens."

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1308895705860321283

    They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.

    To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.

    The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.

    We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.

    All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.

    Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
    Is sating a toddler by giving him the Presidency of the United States really the way forward?
    Definitely not but it might be an unintended consequence that him winning is bad but better in the long run than him losing.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,590

    With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.

    Difficult balancing act though. I think it’s probably correct to hold the rate for now, but chances they might start to fall earlier than summer now, next year.

    Next MPC meeting is Feb 1st which means the January figure will be out so a trend will be visible.

    So we may see a cut in Feb especially if the Fed does the same.

    And I suspect the odds of a May election may have risen a few percent
  • Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    One of the commentators in the States said it could be 9-0.

    I doubt that but I can see Kagan joining the conservatives. If it is 9-0, it’s because the other two Justices are fully aware that they need to stop this tactic now before it gets too entrenched.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    DougSeal said:

    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
    A reminder from Sept 2020.

    Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

    TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens."

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1308895705860321283

    They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.

    To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.

    The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.

    We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.

    All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.

    Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
    Is sating a toddler by giving him the Presidency of the United States really the way forward?
    I worry that Trump will let Ukraine fall, disband NATO and cede Eastern Europe to Putins sphere of influence. If that happened there might be a mass movement of people to the West that dwarfs current migration.

    The second half of the 2020s might be worse than the first.
  • DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Yes, Oxford has become scruffier and has less of the charm than it did. Maybe letting more comprehensive types in?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,002
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    No he’s not been convicted - worse than that, he was impeached for insurrection and was cleared by the Senate of the charges.

    Agreed that SC will likely overturn the Colorado judgement.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Yes, Oxford has become scruffier and has less of the charm than it did. Maybe letting more comprehensive types in?
    Far fewer comprehensive types there now than in my day. Tuition fees saw to that. I went to a grammar so I’ve no dog in that fight.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    One of the commentators in the States said it could be 9-0.

    I doubt that but I can see Kagan joining the conservatives. If it is 9-0, it’s because the other two Justices are fully aware that they need to stop this tactic now before it gets too entrenched.
    More like 8-0 - Clarence Thomas likely to recuse himself as his wife was urging on those storming the Capitol on Jan 6th.

    But the Supreme Court is unlikely to support Trump over the Rule of Law. There are limits.

    Plus the Colorado Supreme Court report is a very detailed take down of those making the case for Trump.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,598

    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy

    I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power

    Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
    A reminder from Sept 2020.

    Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

    TRUMP: "We're gonna have to see what happens."

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1308895705860321283

    They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.

    To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.

    The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.

    We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.

    All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.

    Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
    I’d agree with all of that but I think what will be also important is the manner in which he loses - if it is a very tight race with margins in the thousands and there is the same questioning of ballots, particularly Mail-ins (which Jimmy Carter himself said were particularly detrimental), then things could explode.

    Unfortunately, I think there are a fair few of Trump’s opponents in the US who believe that all means justify the end of stopping Trump - and, if that attitude prevails, it really is going to be a sh1tshow.
    That’s why I reckon there will be an attempt on Trump’s life if he seems VERY VERY close to a second term

    The democrats are working themselves up to it

    And no, this does not diminish or detract from the fact that some Republicans also have violent intent and indeed a recent history of quasi-insurrection

    America is going down a dark tunnel
  • eekeek Posts: 28,590
    edited December 2023
    eek said:

    Horrifying stat from Reddit - on the SNP's new tax bands, if you went to Uni in England and then get a job in Scotland earning over £100,000, your marginal top rate of tax is 78.5%

    For postgrads that goes up to 84.5%

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1737380918011006998?s=46&t=cxkq0jndvkhIwWZCCEL3QQ

    @TheScreamingEagles - it’s true btw - just updated our payslip validation software and that’s the figure we get

    Even without a student loan is 69.5%

    45% income tax
    22.5% from the withdrawal of the allowance
    2% NI
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Yes, Oxford has become scruffier and has less of the charm than it did. Maybe letting more comprehensive types in?
    For decades now, my abiding memory of Oxford has been the stench of piss in the car parks.

    Must have been beneath Morse to do anything about it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,598

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    One of the commentators in the States said it could be 9-0.

    I doubt that but I can see Kagan joining the conservatives. If it is 9-0, it’s because the other two Justices are fully aware that they need to stop this tactic now before it gets too entrenched.
    More like 8-0 - Clarence Thomas likely to recuse himself as his wife was urging on those storming the Capitol on Jan 6th.

    But the Supreme Court is unlikely to support Trump over the Rule of Law. There are limits.

    Plus the Colorado Supreme Court report is a very detailed take down of those making the case for Trump.
    You think the SCOTUS will rule AGAINST Trump?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.

    We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?

    How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.

    Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,598
    Jonathan said:

    Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.

    We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?

    How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.

    Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.

    In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA

    Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    No he’s not been convicted - worse than that, he was impeached for insurrection and was cleared by the Senate of the charges.
    And Biden has been impeached by those same Republicans for - who the fuck knows why? "Because...." is as near as you get to an answer from them.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.

    We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?

    How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.

    Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.

    In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA

    Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
    Ally ourselves with Putin? Really?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    One of the commentators in the States said it could be 9-0.

    I doubt that but I can see Kagan joining the conservatives. If it is 9-0, it’s because the other two Justices are fully aware that they need to stop this tactic now before it gets too entrenched.
    More like 8-0 - Clarence Thomas likely to recuse himself as his wife was urging on those storming the Capitol on Jan 6th.

    But the Supreme Court is unlikely to support Trump over the Rule of Law. There are limits.

    Plus the Colorado Supreme Court report is a very detailed take down of those making the case for Trump.
    You think the SCOTUS will rule AGAINST Trump?
    Call me a contrarian, but yes.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Let this be a lesson to those who wish to solve fundamentally political issues through legal means. Joylon Maughan take note.

    Is there any point at which the Democrats see sense at tell Biden to stand down?
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Horrifying stat from Reddit - on the SNP's new tax bands, if you went to Uni in England and then get a job in Scotland earning over £100,000, your marginal top rate of tax is 78.5%

    For postgrads that goes up to 84.5%

    https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1737380918011006998?s=46&t=cxkq0jndvkhIwWZCCEL3QQ

    @TheScreamingEagles - it’s true btw - just updated our payslip validation software and that’s the figure we get

    Even without a student loan is 69.5%

    45% income tax
    22.5% from the withdrawal of the allowance
    2% NI
    Wow.

    I am so glad I have tax advisers.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,925
    edited December 2023
    eek said:

    With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.

    Difficult balancing act though. I think it’s probably correct to hold the rate for now, but chances they might start to fall earlier than summer now, next year.

    Next MPC meeting is Feb 1st which means the January figure will be out so a trend will be visible.

    So we may see a cut in Feb especially if the Fed does the same.

    And I suspect the odds of a May election may have risen a few percent
    If I were to guess I think they’ll wait til the meeting in May, but positive noises will be made beforehand. There’s still the energy price increase in the new year to feed in, for instance.

    From the economics of the situation, a May election feels optimal. However, I suppose on the other side of that you could say October gives the chance for there to have been possible further rate cuts (though I suspect when they do come down it will be very tentatively).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805

    FPT:

    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising
    almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    That first article is bullshit.

    It basically says an employee can’t increase their hours enough and the rich wouldn’t want to work harder because they make enough money for a good life anyway.

    I will be generous and assume you didn’t read it before posting the link
    theProle said:

    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    MikeL said:

    These Scottish income tax rates really are something.

    Rest of UK - higher rate of 40% starts at £50,270.

    Scotland - higher rate is 42% and starts at £43,633.

    Scotland then has a 45% rate from £75,000 to £125,140.

    Rest of UK top rate (above £125,140) is 45%.

    Scotland top rate (above £125,140) is 48%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67759418

    Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
    Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
    Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.

    We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
    You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
    Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.

    The Wikipedia entry on Laffer is decently balanced and useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#:~:text=Case of Wellesley College and,not appear to support this."

    The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).

    Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
    There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.

    As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that
    "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".

    It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.

    Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
    Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
    I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
    The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.

    Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).

    Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
    The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.

    Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.

    65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
    The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
    Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid.
    It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.

    You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.

    Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
    I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one

    https://www.wupr.org/2012/09/11/the-laffer-curve-a-stupid-idea-that-just-wont-die/

    And another

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
    I can't read the second article (pay walled), but the 1st article doesn't dispute the existence of a Laffer Curve. It's making claims about its shape, specifically that a tax rate of 35% is not over its peak. It actually say that at very high rates (80-90%) there will be a noticeable effect.

    Given our discussion was sparked by the Scottish government going for a marginal rate for some people of 69.5%, rather than denying there is a curve, we could perhaps move on to the more interesting question, namely - is 69.5% over the revenue maximising peak or not?
    Try this for size

    https://ctmirror.org/2018/01/18/why-the-laffer-curve-is-garbage/
    That's a load of nonsense too. It totally ignores value creation by high earner, presuming that if they earn less because of high tax rates, the organisation they work for gets to keep the money they would have paid them, so it doesn't matter that those high earners earn less.

    So imagine a medical consultant decides to only work 3 days a week instead of 5 because of his marginal tax rate. Great, the hospital gets to save 2/5th of his wages. Less great is that he'll only see 3/5ths of the number of patients.

    The best case scenario is that the hospital manage to employ another consultant for 2 days a week at the same rate, and which point the government gets no extra tax revenue, and the hospital gets a load of extra admin from having two people doing one job.

    If there is a shortage of consultants, which it will be if this behaviour is widely replicated, as we've almost just doubled the number required to do the same amount of work, then their wages will rise (supply and demand). Then they will go into high marginal tax sooner... So may decide to only do two days a week, and round the whole doom loop we go again.

    Before long you discover that the results of your high tax policy are to massively increase costs or reduce output for the hospital, whilst raising very little tax. And then you find your consultant working cash in hand on his new "days off" with his mate whose a painter and decorator (don't laugh, I've seen this first hand!).
    A hospital consultant on say, £120k, has their take home pay reduced from £75k to £70k because of an increase in marginal rates... will react by cutting their hours by 40% to end up with a take home pay of (checks) £55k. Right.

    Snip
    Yep that is exactly how people think. We are seeing it loads in all sorts of branches of consulting across lots of indstries and also in employment. When people are getting towards the senior end of their careers they look at lot more closely at work/life balance. And things like the tax trap are what make them decide the time has come to scale back. We saw it with GPs when the new working arangments were introduced and lots of them decided the small amounts of extra money they got just wasn't worth the additional commitments.

    It may not be logical in purely financial terms but such decisions are based value judgements weighing up lots of factors and doing the same work for less money is definitely one that triggers a lot of people to reassess their careers.
    I fully accept it happens, particularly with those later in life, kids left home, mortgaged paid etc., but in return I ask you to recognise that the other scenario also happens: take home pay reduces so I'm going to work harder, longer, find a better job, etc.
    Not sure that in the realms of consulting it is that common when you get to the senior end of careers. And how many Hospital Consultants are even able to increase their hours? The few I know seem to be working almost 24/7 these days given the state of the Health Service. (slight exaggeration of course but know what I mean)

    I mean I do get your point but it is predicated on a set of assumptions about the NHS which I think are false, and all on the negative side.
    I was really talking about the overall effect of increasing taxation and particularly in respect of the alleged Laffer effect that the tax take would go down because people will work less. My contention is that for every person in a position to reduce their effort 'because it's not worth it' there's another who will increase effort to maintain their income.

    Both sides are inherently difficult to prove of course but let's not maintain* the fiction that the Laffer Curve is proven or probable.

    (* I am not suggesting you were btw)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,193
    Ghedebrav said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67690626

    Abuse at ballet schools - it is shocking but thoroughly unsurprising. The ingredients are all there.

    I passing, there’s a reason why ballet makes such an effective theme for horror (Suspiria being one of the greatest horror movies of all time).

    In contrast, I just watched the Korean drama Navillera on Netflix, which has the (somewhat improbable) premise of a ballet obsessed septuagenarian retiree learning to dance.

    Utterly charming.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    With inflation down to 3.9%, those holding out for serious double-digit pay rises would be wise to consider an early settlement.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,039
    edited December 2023

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Yes, Oxford has become scruffier and has less of the charm than it did. Maybe letting more comprehensive types in?
    For decades now, my abiding memory of Oxford has been the stench of piss in the car parks.

    Must have been beneath Morse to do anything about it.
    He probably contributed to it given the amount of foaming, frothy, nutty beer he quaffed in the old place on a regular basis. Probably got caught short a few times.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    FPT: I believe in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus slays a dragon, although sadly that gospel never made it into the Bible.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,598

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    One of the commentators in the States said it could be 9-0.

    I doubt that but I can see Kagan joining the conservatives. If it is 9-0, it’s because the other two Justices are fully aware that they need to stop this tactic now before it gets too entrenched.
    More like 8-0 - Clarence Thomas likely to recuse himself as his wife was urging on those storming the Capitol on Jan 6th.

    But the Supreme Court is unlikely to support Trump over the Rule of Law. There are limits.

    Plus the Colorado Supreme Court report is a very detailed take down of those making the case for Trump.
    You think the SCOTUS will rule AGAINST Trump?
    Call me a contrarian, but yes.
    The subject of Trump turns you into a moron
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Yes, Oxford has become scruffier and has less of the charm than it did. Maybe letting more comprehensive types in?
    I had a girlfriend at Univ a good few years back, so spent a fair amount of time round the university without actually studying there.

    I always quite liked the fact that Oxford had a proper scruffy town attached to it; adds to the charm for me as opposed to e.g. Cambridge. But then I’m from Donny.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,473

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?

    My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.

    Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.

    One of the commentators in the States said it could be 9-0.

    I doubt that but I can see Kagan joining the conservatives. If it is 9-0, it’s because the other two Justices are fully aware that they need to stop this tactic now before it gets too entrenched.
    More like 8-0 - Clarence Thomas likely to recuse himself as his wife was urging on those storming the Capitol on Jan 6th.

    But the Supreme Court is unlikely to support Trump over the Rule of Law. There are limits.

    Plus the Colorado Supreme Court report is a very detailed take down of those making the case for Trump.
    Thomas, recuse himself? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    Ghedebrav said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67690626

    Abuse at ballet schools - it is shocking but thoroughly unsurprising. The ingredients are all there.

    I passing, there’s a reason why ballet makes such an effective theme for horror (Suspiria being one of the greatest horror movies of all time).

    Black Swan too.
    Yes - though it doesn’t hit the heights that Suspiria does, I think by being that touch too serious.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,556
    Taz said:

    DougSeal said:

    MattW said:

    Dethreaded:

    Good morning everyone.

    Back from my first pre-Christmas weekend away in Kent. One thing that I notice is that Canterbury is smaller than my North Notts market town, yet has *four* Universities; part of levelling up needs to be long term institutions, which here are rather missing.

    TSE will be impressed - it was a Strictly Finals Party, watching and walking, and unfortunately not much dancing.

    My first recommended PB TV for the holiday: a 1972 series called Nairn Across Britain - 50 years ago, when OGH was (possibly) a twenty-something stylish young gent in a fur coat and orange jeans.

    Ian Nairn taking rail a canal boat across Britain looking at towns along the canals, and reflecting on what it was & what he thought could happen.

    This episode is along the Trans-Pennine canal from Salford to Leeds.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rwfkm

    Canterbury's a bit of a dump though isn't it? Went last year expecting it to be like Bath, Oxford or York, but no, it's a bit scummy.
    How dare you! Finest city in England. My Dad’s from York and I went to law school there, and I am an Oxford graduate, but neither hold a candle to my home City. Oxford in particular has gone to the dogs. Canterbury’s let down slightly by the end that got wiped out in the Baedecker raid.
    Yes, Oxford has become scruffier and has less of the charm than it did. Maybe letting more comprehensive types in?
    For decades now, my abiding memory of Oxford has been the stench of piss in the car parks.

    Must have been beneath Morse to do anything about it.
    He probably contributed to it given the amount of foaming, frothy, nutty beer he quaffed in the old place on a regular basis. Probably got caught short a few times.
    Wouldn’t Morse have just barked at Lewis to clear it up and Lewis would just resignedly put down his sad little glass of orange juice with his permanent hang-dog face and start mopping whilst muttering under his breath about not understanding these sophisticated southern intellectuals and their ways whilst cheering himself up with the thought of a weekend back in Newcastle drinking fizzy lager in a t-shirt in -5 degree weather.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,598
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.

    We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?

    How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.

    Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.

    In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA

    Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
    Ally ourselves with Putin? Really?
    It’s deeply unpleasant realpolitik

    If Trump effectively abandons NATO who do we want as our ultimate ally? Mighty America, our superpower cousin (and Five Eyes friend) for the last century, or France and Germany and Bulgaria?

    Let’s pray we are never forced to choose, but if forced to choose we should go with the USA, every time
  • The second Trump presidency is going to be far more damaging than the first one outside of the US. Putin, Netanyahu, Orban and a variety of other despots and anti-democrats know they only have to hang on for another 13 months and they are going to be in clover, able to do pretty much as they wish. I think that sets us up for a 2024 that is internationally even grimmer than 2023 has been.

    Inside the US, I suspect that the damage will be far less pronounced, as it has already largely been done. The federal system also inoculates many states from the worst of what Trump can do. You would not want t be a minority in a GOP-run state, though.

    One side effect of the next Trump presidency will be that if Labour is in charge when he takes power once more, the UK is going to get much closer to the EU very quickly, with the backing of a large majority of the population.
This discussion has been closed.