My first election I followed was 1996 (Australian Federal Election) where the Liberals whom I had leanings towards as an already right-leaning economically teenager managed to win their first election in a generation.
Hard to especially follow UK politics as much until my return to the UK in 2000, so my first major British election was the first one I voted in too, 2001. It was a fairly boring election to be honest and the first (and only so far) election that I voted Labour in. By 2005 I was really worried about the debt that Brown was running up so I voted Tory despite my major misgivings over Michael Howard, it wasn't until Cameron that the Tories had a leader I could respect.
My first election I followed was 1996 (Australian Federal Election) where the Liberals whom I had leanings towards as an already right-leaning economically teenager managed to win their first election in a generation.
Hard to especially follow UK politics as much until my return to the UK in 2000, so my first major British election was the first one I voted in too, 2001. It was a fairly boring election to be honest and the first (and only so far) election that I voted Labour in. By 2005 I was really worried about the debt that Brown was running up so I voted Tory despite my major misgivings over Michael Howard, it wasn't until Cameron that the Tories had a leader I could respect.
Did you feel that he had something of the night about him?
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
First general election I recall was when Heath won in 1970. I remember a local MP blubbing at losing his seat - Belper. Didn't quite register aged 10 that he was the deputy leader of the Labour Party, George Brown, who was prone to being rather emotional. And tired.
I seem to remember he even managed to get emotional and tired at a drinks party in Lahore where they only served orange juice.
Which served as the inspiration for one of the greatest Yes Minister gags: 'Will you tell the press about the messages room or shall I?'
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
We do need to reduce tax rates, but not on "the rich".
"The rich" are on a maximum tax rate of 47% if that.
Someone on Universal Credit can be on 70%+
Someone around 50k or 100k earnings can be on ridiculous rates too.
We need to cut rates, but cut rates where they're at their highest - which is not on the rich, its on those caught by the traps in the tax system.
If we had a serious Conservative government, focused on doing the right thing for the country rather than sugar-hit headlines, they would focus on solving this.
My first election was 1979. Callaghan had very kindly delayed the election to after my 18th birthday. I remember David Alton winning a bye election in Liverpool Edge Hill, I think this was a matter of days before the general. I also remember the Liberal in Cardiff SE telling his supporters to vote for the Tory against Callaghan!!
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
We do need to reduce tax rates, but not on "the rich".
"The rich" are on a maximum tax rate of 47% if that.
Someone on Universal Credit can be on 70%+
Someone around 50k or 100k earnings can be on ridiculous rates too.
We need to cut rates, but cut rates where they're at their highest - which is not on the rich, its on those caught by the traps in the tax system.
If we had a serious Conservative government, focused on doing the right thing for the country rather than sugar-hit headlines, they would focus on solving this.
The problem with that argument is that except for the £100,000 barrier, this Government has intentionally created these insane rules.
Worse they generate so much money that both of them are going to be exceedingly difficult to fix
1997 for me - I was only allowed to stay up to watch the first hour, but was awake well before 6 the next morning, just in time to watch the "a new dawn has broken, has it not?" moment (at the Festival Hall?)
I was still at primary school, so remember the early campaign during the easter holidays most of all. It seemed like the entire media establishment had turned against the Tories, and were busily hurling all the shit that they'd been saving up for years. I remember feeling sorry for the Tories more than anything else - the impression I got was that they'd tried hard, things had gone their way for a while, but that they'd badly overstayed their welcome.
There was an endless series of new scandals, with poor old Brian Mawhinney being sent out to face questions on BBC Breakfast and the One O'Clock News. I can still see in my mind's eye him grinning and shrugging his shoulders when confronted with each new disaster.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
We do need to reduce tax rates, but not on "the rich".
"The rich" are on a maximum tax rate of 47% if that.
Someone on Universal Credit can be on 70%+
Someone around 50k or 100k earnings can be on ridiculous rates too.
We need to cut rates, but cut rates where they're at their highest - which is not on the rich, its on those caught by the traps in the tax system.
If we had a serious Conservative government, focused on doing the right thing for the country rather than sugar-hit headlines, they would focus on solving this.
1997 for me - I was only allowed to stay up to watch the first hour, but was awake well before 6 the next morning, just in time to watch the "a new dawn has broken, has it not?" moment (at the Festival Hall?)
I was still at primary school, so remember the early campaign during the easter holidays most of all. It seemed like the entire media establishment had turned against the Tories, and were busily hurling all the shit that they'd been saving up for years. I remember feeling sorry for the Tories more than anything else - the impression I got was that they'd tried hard, things had gone their way for a while, but that they'd badly overstayed their welcome.
There was an endless series of new scandals, with poor old Brian Mawhinney being sent out to face questions on BBC Breakfast and the One O'Clock News. I can still see in my mind's eye him grinning and shrugging his shoulders when confronted with each new disaster.
Yes, I remember that vividly, also the fear of Labour and other non-tories that shy tory syndrome was real
The first I followed was Macmillan's "Never had it so good" election of 1959, but the first I could theoretically vote in, being over 21, was Wilson's "white heat of technology" election of '64. But neither then nor in Heath's 1970 election did I vote because both were in University term time and I wasn't on the electoral roll.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Italy are the worst team in the competition by a country mile.
I think they've played rather well in this tournament.
They have played well but they are still the worst team.
France have stolen a win off Scotland which clearly should have gone the other way and then fluked a draw against Italy they frankly didn't deserve. A very poor 6 nations for them. Even England are doing better.
1987 was the first election I was conscious of, aged 11. Then 1992 was a huge disappointment. Growing up in a left leaning household in the NE of England and Scotland there was such a crushing sense that the Tories would just be there, shitting on us, for the rest of time. 1997 was the first election I voted in, the first where I did a bit of campaigning for Labour, and the first where I stayed up all night to watch the results coming in. I was 21 and a few months from my finals, a load of us had a very drunken night watching the BBC coverage on a friend's tiny portable TV. I remember the following day was so lovely and sunny, even the weather seemed happy with the result. "A new day has dawned, has it not."
I think my first voting experience was the Danish 1992 Maastricht referendum (I am a dual). That was the year Denmark beat Germany in the European football championship and were riding high with national pride. Denmark therefore rejected by 1.5% of the vote ( I voted for joining maastricht as I had just read Kants "Universal history with Cosmopolitan Purpose). This was a profound political crisis, as france had only joined with a petit out and all countries had to ratify. Denmark ended up joining with 4 exceptions in 1993.... this is why you still pay with dkk in Denmark, although it is pegged (lol) to the euro.
On Friday evening I was supposed to be attending a fundraising dinner for our PCC @benadams4staffs .
Shortly before I set off to attend, I was informed by colleagues who had got there early that there was a substantial protest, and that they were awaiting the police.
I delivered leaflets in 1970 and was precocious enough (aged 9) to do some canvassing for the Tories. Little did I know it but my 10 year old future wife was effectively working as a deputy agent for the Labour party in the same election, collating all the returns, expenses and receipts. Her dad was a serving Labour councillor in the same constituency at the time.
On Friday evening I was supposed to be attending a fundraising dinner for our PCC @benadams4staffs .
Shortly before I set off to attend, I was informed by colleagues who had got there early that there was a substantial protest, and that they were awaiting the police.
Nothing “peaceful” about this mob who came to harass and intimidate people. If anything it looks more like hate.
Storming into a private event, shouting aggressively at people, using terms like “zionist” in a way which some people may perceive as racist, and targeting people… x.com/luqmann_97/sta…
The protest was not limited to outside the venue - some of them managed to gain entry and shout aggressively at people, Foolishly the ringleaders filmed themselves doing this and posting it on social media (see @GullisJonathan ’s thread for more details). The police subsequently advised that they could not guarantee people’s safety and advised them to leave (and advised me not to come altogether). The force was stretched across multiple incidents on Friday night, and I am grateful for them protecting everyone’s safety, …
…but for a fundraising dinner to be cancelled by the mob is an infringement of the democratic process which cannot and should not be tolerated.
Earlier this week, we saw an outrageous and unprecedented ruling by the Speaker, which he subsequently claimed was designed to keep MPs safe. But giving in to terror and intimidation never works; it only encourages more of the same.
I am pleased by the subsequent reaction of @StaffsPolice and the fact that they have now made an arrest, but clearly the intimidation that politicians at all levels (and their supporters) are enduring is beyond unacceptable.
The scenes in London every week at protest marches and around Parliament are normalising a very disturbing state of affairs.
I will continue to represent Newcastle and stand up for my constituents, and for my beliefs, without being cowed by these disgraceful antics - which the PSC laughably described as “democracy in action”.
But my staff and my family should not feel that they may be at risk because of the job that I do.
As the Prime Minister @RishiSunak said earlier today, our democracy cannot and must not bend to the threat of violence and intimidation.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Sorry but don’t you read this site - a lot of people have anecdotes to that effect. In my case one reason why I left the contract I had in November was that I was about to hit that £100,000 mark if I stayed any longer and an interesting contract elsewhere came up that was outside IR35.
Now I’ve probably lost £10,000 by taking that contract but I’ve also avoided £5000 in tax so the cost really wasn’t that significant and the project is more interesting
My first General Election was February 1974. I had worked as a metal polisher for a while, but had just got a job as a junior clerk/office boy in a solicitor's office, where I was taken under the wing of a very kindly lady in the Accounts Department. She was a serious and solid Conservative, as was her husband, a Polish refugee. She asked me about voting intentions, my general interest in the political process etc, and I fear I was somewhat vague. Then she asked if I was going to stay up for the results, because it was so exciting. Was it, I wondered? Oh yes, she said, Robert Mackenzie's Swingometer was probably the best thing on the telly! Analysing the results, making the forecasts, watching some household names squeak home or get defeated, it was thrilling. So, I took her at her word, and stayed up to watch.
I was gripped, and I have been hooked ever since. The televisual thrill of a good election is impossible to beat. But the real damage to my sanity and general well-being in future years was seeing the Liberals get 19% of the votes, but only a dozen seats. I genuinely had no idea that elections could, or would, work like that. I was outraged that nice Mr Thorpe could have been cheated in that way. So I started to pay more attention to politics generally. The local library (remember them?) was where I got my political books from, and I paid more attention to political broadcasts, broadsheet newspapers and the like. My uncle had been a significant (salaried) official of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and my parents were probably Conservatives (we were too polite to discuss such things) but there's no doubt about it - the February General Election of 1974 made me a Liberal.
Donald Trump has attacked Prince Harry for his 'unforgiveable betrayal' of the late Queen as he criticised the Biden administration's handling of the Duke's US visa application.
The former US president criticised the way that the Biden administration is 'protecting Harry' in the visa battle over the Duke of Sussex's drug use.
'I wouldn't protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That's unforgiveable. He would be on his own if it was down to me,' Mr Trump exclusively told the Sunday Express and added: 'I think they have been too gracious to him after what he has done.'
Italy are the worst team in the competition by a country mile.
I think they've played rather well in this tournament.
They have played well but they are still the worst team.
France have stolen a win off Scotland which clearly should have gone the other way and then fluked a draw against Italy they frankly didn't deserve. A very poor 6 nations for them. Even England are doing better.
The decision in the game against France was insane. The ball was clearly grounded. I am no Scotland fan - and am gutted that you have now won four in a row against us - but that was a gross injustice. Scotland should now be going for the Slam, but aren’t, because of that shambolic decision.
Italy are the worst team in the competition by a country mile.
I think they've played rather well in this tournament.
They have played well but they are still the worst team.
France have stolen a win off Scotland which clearly should have gone the other way and then fluked a draw against Italy they frankly didn't deserve. A very poor 6 nations for them. Even England are doing better.
The decision in the game against France was insane. The ball was clearly grounded. I am no Scotland fan - and am gutted that you have now won four in a row against us - but that was a gross injustice. Scotland should now be going for the Slam, but aren’t, because of that shambolic decision.
For that not to have been a try, the French would need to have been issued with single-atom thick material with which to hold up the ball...
Italy are the worst team in the competition by a country mile.
I think they've played rather well in this tournament.
They have played well but they are still the worst team.
France have stolen a win off Scotland which clearly should have gone the other way and then fluked a draw against Italy they frankly didn't deserve. A very poor 6 nations for them. Even England are doing better.
The decision in the game against France was insane. The ball was clearly grounded. I am no Scotland fan - and am gutted that you have now won four in a row against us - but that was a gross injustice. Scotland should now be going for the Slam, but aren’t, because of that shambolic decision.
For that not to have been a try, the French would need to have been issued with single-atom thick material with which to hold up the ball...
It was grounded. They were robbed.
Ha! I said a cigarette paper to a mate, but I prefer your explanation (which is also more accurate)!
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Sorry but don’t you read this site - a lot of people have anecdotes to that effect. In my case one reason why I left the contract I had in November was that I was about to hit that £100,000 mark if I stayed any longer and an interesting contract elsewhere came up that was outside IR35.
Now I’ve probably lost £10,000 by taking that contract but I’ve also avoided £5000 in tax so the cost really wasn’t that significant and the project is more interesting
You did one thing, I did the opposite. That's 1-1.
I contend that for every person who thinks 'higher tax rate? - I'm going to work less and accept less income', there are several who will simply look for opportunities to work longer or get a better paid job to maintain or improve their standard of living.
Do I think the 'Laffer curve' is a true reflection of economic reality? No I don't.
The first election I followed was 1979. Its why my benchmark for a 'landslide' has always been a 50-seat majority. I first voted in 1987. I have campaigned only in 1997 - also the only GE in which I voted Lab (though that record is about to fall). I remember the faulty exit poll in 1987 which was followed by all the other polls in 1992. Both events probably fuelled what happened in 1997. 2010 was an interesting campaign to watch - people forget how certain folk were that Cameron would win at a canter. 2017 was that and on steroids. 1992 and 2015 were notable for the Conservatives using fear of a hung parliament to great effect. Not sure that would play now. No election was as pitiful as 2019. A dire choice that I was pretty sure bode ill for the nation. Sadly I was 100% right.
My first memories are of the General election in 1979. I was at secondary school in Hull and the son of the Labour MP handed round his Dad's election literature and campaign stickers in the playground. It was safe Labour, so his Dad was safely re-elected. Shortly thereafter, his son left our comprehensive school and went to the town's private school, Hymers College. That made an impression on me as a teenager.
I delivered leaflets in 1970 and was precocious enough (aged 9) to do some canvassing for the Tories. Little did I know it but my 10 year old future wife was effectively working as a deputy agent for the Labour party in the same election, collating all the returns, expenses and receipts. Her dad was a serving Labour councillor in the same constituency at the time.
It’s remarkable how commonplace cross-partisan marriages are in the UK. My sense is they are rarer elsewhere, e.g. the US.
The first election I really followed was in 83 when I was 17. Annoyingly I was a month too young to vote as my birthday was in July but I followed it closely for much the same reasons TSE cites in the header - a fascination with the statistics surrounding the vote.
Coming from a Tory voting family and being about to be the first of my family to go to University, I wanted a Thatcher victory so was pleased with the result - I would go on to vote Tory in 87 having been a member of Conservative, Labour and PC societies at Cardiff University in the intervening years (The latter because it allowed you entry to the PC Club which was the only place you could get a drink in Cardiff after hours on a Sunday evening).
With the exception of the 2001 GE where the Tory candidate was a personal friend, I would never vote Tory again.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
You worked in a meritocracy? That's unusual. Most jobs these days it's about who you know, how much you flatter them and whether you will agree to cover up the crimes of the organisation.
Donald Trump has attacked Prince Harry for his 'unforgiveable betrayal' of the late Queen as he criticised the Biden administration's handling of the Duke's US visa application.
The former US president criticised the way that the Biden administration is 'protecting Harry' in the visa battle over the Duke of Sussex's drug use.
'I wouldn't protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That's unforgiveable. He would be on his own if it was down to me,' Mr Trump exclusively told the Sunday Express and added: 'I think they have been too gracious to him after what he has done.'
Well, I never had Harry and Meghan facing Trump's firing squad at Terra Haute. I suppose to Trump traitors are traitors whatever their background.
I delivered leaflets in 1970 and was precocious enough (aged 9) to do some canvassing for the Tories. Little did I know it but my 10 year old future wife was effectively working as a deputy agent for the Labour party in the same election, collating all the returns, expenses and receipts. Her dad was a serving Labour councillor in the same constituency at the time.
It’s remarkable how commonplace cross-partisan marriages are in the UK. My sense is they are rarer elsewhere, e.g. the US.
As we have got older she has become more right wing and I have become, if anything, more centrist/ centre left on social issues. When I first met her at University she had a bit of a crush on Tony Benn (and John Denver, but that was a whole different story).
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
If you think the Laffer curve is a valid reflection of economic reality please tell me what percentage tax rate delivers the peak tax take.
1964 is the first election In remember, I recall TV coverage of the Smethwick thing, with (I think) Lord Boothby incandescent with anger about it; with my tender years I was preserved from knowing exactly what it was all about. 1966 is also a bit vague in memory. 1970 is the first I followed with understanding; but there was nothing like the coverage there is now for literally years. Polling was rare. (I blame Political Betting).
A memory from 1970. I was 15. A teacher said 'Attend a hustings'. So I did - in my area of Southgate, a safe (Anthony Berry) Tory seat. The Labour candidate angrily rejected an accusation that he was sympathetic to Palestinians, amid hissing and shock. In Southgate such sympathies were unthinkable. And, I remember him also saying "This safe Tory seat will one day fall to the Labour party". And everyone laughed. This too was unthinkable. And I remembered that at the moment I saw Portillo beaten, in that very seat (by then called Enfield Southgate).
1970: I remember seeing some of the BBC election night coverage - and knowing the result (with little idea of what it meant) before going to school in the morning. I was eight.
I’ve avoided rewatching the coverage on iPlayer, as it’s likely to produce false memories of the event.
Italy are the worst team in the competition by a country mile.
I think they've played rather well in this tournament.
They have played well but they are still the worst team.
France have stolen a win off Scotland which clearly should have gone the other way and then fluked a draw against Italy they frankly didn't deserve. A very poor 6 nations for them. Even England are doing better.
The decision in the game against France was insane. The ball was clearly grounded. I am no Scotland fan - and am gutted that you have now won four in a row against us - but that was a gross injustice. Scotland should now be going for the Slam, but aren’t, because of that shambolic decision.
I really wouldn't fancy our chances against the Irish, to be honest, but it would have been an epic occasion. As it is I think that they will have sufficient bonus points against us that we cannot win even if we did.
Moldovan separatists to ask Putin to annexe their region
Rebel government to submit its request to Kremlin during a special congress on Wednesday
Given that Russia would first have to defeat and occupy most of Ukraine I would suggest this is a pretty pointless exercise by the separatists.
It wouldn't surprise me if Russia passed a law to annex the regions in between Transnistria and Kherson as well to stake their claim in any future peace negotiations.
Moldovan separatists to ask Putin to annexe their region
Rebel government to submit its request to Kremlin during a special congress on Wednesday
Given that Russia would first have to defeat and occupy most of Ukraine I would suggest this is a pretty pointless exercise by the separatists.
It'll be for the international tankies and their temporary fellow travellers, to justify Russia's claim over the southern Ukrainian coast through Odessa. "Russia must be able to rescue the Transnistrians from those evil Ukrainian Nazis!"
The same excuse will be used over Kaliningrad, at Lithuania and/or Poland's potential cost.
(No, I'm not saying that they'll be doing either this year. But the more such thoughts are normalised, the easier it will be if and when they are ready.)
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
You worked in a meritocracy? That's unusual. Most jobs these days it's about who you know, how much you flatter them and whether you will agree to cover up the crimes of the organisation.
I didn't say I was very successful in my goals.
I'd say it was a partial meritocracy, but sadly there was a good slice of 'who you know'.
Obviously, when I got promoted it was on merit; when I got passed over 'who you know' was clearly operating. ;-)
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
We do need to reduce tax rates, but not on "the rich".
"The rich" are on a maximum tax rate of 47% if that.
Someone on Universal Credit can be on 70%+
Someone around 50k or 100k earnings can be on ridiculous rates too.
We need to cut rates, but cut rates where they're at their highest - which is not on the rich, its on those caught by the traps in the tax system.
If we had a serious Conservative government, focused on doing the right thing for the country rather than sugar-hit headlines, they would focus on solving this.
The Tories want to bleed young people dry.
So do Labour. British politics is primarily a contest to win the support of the grey vote with house price and state pension inflation.
My first election was 1979. Callaghan had very kindly delayed the election to after my 18th birthday. I remember David Alton winning a bye election in Liverpool Edge Hill, I think this was a matter of days before the general. I also remember the Liberal in Cardiff SE telling his supporters to vote for the Tory against Callaghan!!
A wonderful example of buggering up. The by-election was in what had been a safe Labour seat even during the bizarre height of Protestant Party Merseyside dominance. But, when the elderly Labour incumbent died, Labour faffed about for months before moving the writ for the by-election, which was eventually held the day after Callaghan lost the vote of confidence.
By 1979, the chances of a Tory winning any seat in inner Liverpool (or even surviving unscathed) were virtually zero, so the Liberals won. And for a few years, Liverpool remained an apparently inexplicable outpost of Liberal seats.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Sorry but don’t you read this site - a lot of people have anecdotes to that effect. In my case one reason why I left the contract I had in November was that I was about to hit that £100,000 mark if I stayed any longer and an interesting contract elsewhere came up that was outside IR35.
Now I’ve probably lost £10,000 by taking that contract but I’ve also avoided £5000 in tax so the cost really wasn’t that significant and the project is more interesting
You did one thing, I did the opposite. That's 1-1.
I contend that for every person who thinks 'higher tax rate? - I'm going to work less and accept less income', there are several who will simply look for opportunities to work longer or get a better paid job to maintain or improve their standard of living.
Do I think the 'Laffer curve' is a true reflection of economic reality? No I don't.
I’ve come across people all up and down the income scale minimising tax by reducing hours, increasing pension contributions etc
A classic is the part time working trap where too many hours reduces benefits about as fast as you earn. So you are in a low paid job, generally tough, and they expect you to work more hours for next to no reward.
The common theme I come across is that “more than 50% is taking the piss”
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Sorry but don’t you read this site - a lot of people have anecdotes to that effect. In my case one reason why I left the contract I had in November was that I was about to hit that £100,000 mark if I stayed any longer and an interesting contract elsewhere came up that was outside IR35.
Now I’ve probably lost £10,000 by taking that contract but I’ve also avoided £5000 in tax so the cost really wasn’t that significant and the project is more interesting
You did one thing, I did the opposite. That's 1-1.
I contend that for every person who thinks 'higher tax rate? - I'm going to work less and accept less income', there are several who will simply look for opportunities to work longer or get a better paid job to maintain or improve their standard of living.
Do I think the 'Laffer curve' is a true reflection of economic reality? No I don't.
The problem I have encountered is the high level of marginal tax above 50k or 100k often means that taking a job at a higher wage to advance yourself results in a real world fall in income, ie when office attendance expectation or location mean commuting or childcare costs (taken from post tax income) increase more than the nominal rise in post tax income due to high marginal tax rates. This would be really exacerbated if you are paying off an endless student loan (9% on top of 40% at the same time as child support being withdrawn above 50k).
So I don't think it is really a case of people not wanting to 'do the right thing', the situation is complex.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
The massive spikes in marginal rates at certain points (including too-rapid withdrawal of means tested benefits) are pretty clear examples of bad things according to Laffer theory. Even if some people ignore them, that's still the case.
What Laffer and his disciples never seem to mention is the left hand bit of the curve, where increasing rates increases revenue. Is there any particular reason to think that isn't where we are overall?
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Moldovan separatists to ask Putin to annexe their region
Rebel government to submit its request to Kremlin during a special congress on Wednesday
Given that Russia would first have to defeat and occupy most of Ukraine I would suggest this is a pretty pointless exercise by the separatists.
It'll be for the international tankies and their temporary fellow travellers, to justify Russia's claim over the southern Ukrainian coast through Odessa. "Russia must be able to rescue the Transnistrians from those evil Ukrainian Nazis!"
The same excuse will be used over Kaliningrad, at Lithuania and/or Poland's potential cost.
(No, I'm not saying that they'll be doing either this year. But the more such thoughts are normalised, the easier it will be if and when they are ready.)
Not this year, but in due course.
You have to admire the Russian strategy of the last few hundred years. Somehow they’ve managed to become the largest empire on the planet, and remain so to this day, without anyone noticing they’re an empire.
Hell they even manage to make common cause with “anti-imperialists” with no sense of irony.
I’m not sure what if anything will shake them from their colonial mentality. It’s not like Nazi Germany or Napoleonic France which made dramatic gains but over a short period, then lost them again. They’ve had an empire so long they’ve developed a sense of unshakeable entitlement.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs
Do not even think about it. Hunt's quite stupid enough to do it.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
If you think the Laffer curve is a valid reflection of economic reality please tell me what percentage tax rate delivers the peak tax take.
Last time we had this discussion I went to the effort of digging out the HMRC analysis from about a decade ago and linked to it. But I guess you didn’t bother to read it.
It is around 47-48% I believe (FWIW that would align with my personal view that taking more than 50% of someone’s income in tax feels wrong).
But this is all complicated by the fact that everyone has a different personal curve (elasticity of propensity to work) and what we call the “Laffer curve” is an aggregate.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Sorry but don’t you read this site - a lot of people have anecdotes to that effect. In my case one reason why I left the contract I had in November was that I was about to hit that £100,000 mark if I stayed any longer and an interesting contract elsewhere came up that was outside IR35.
Now I’ve probably lost £10,000 by taking that contract but I’ve also avoided £5000 in tax so the cost really wasn’t that significant and the project is more interesting
You did one thing, I did the opposite. That's 1-1.
I contend that for every person who thinks 'higher tax rate? - I'm going to work less and accept less income', there are several who will simply look for opportunities to work longer or get a better paid job to maintain or improve their standard of living.
Do I think the 'Laffer curve' is a true reflection of economic reality? No I don't.
I’ve come across people all up and down the income scale minimising tax by reducing hours, increasing pension contributions etc
A classic is the part time working trap where too many hours reduces benefits about as fast as you earn. So you are in a low paid job, generally tough, and they expect you to work more hours for next to no reward.
The common theme I come across is that “more than 50% is taking the piss”
That's a fair answer thank you.
I can see the psychological line that 50% marks so would accept its a fair upper limit to try to stick to. (Working UC claimants do of course face an effective 55% rate and have no choice but to suck it up.)
On the whole, I think we should move away from increasing taxation on incomes and instead tax wealth, albeit at a very low rate, with a high personal allowance.
What does need to happen though is the even up the taxation on ALL income - currently earned income for those below pension age is taxed higher than unearned income or eraned income for those over 66. That needs to be resolved.
The other issue is that there are some insane tax loopholes, the £7500 per year allowance for taking in a lodger being one. So if you are earning 50k per year and take in a lodger paying £7500 per year, it is the same impact on your finances as if your salary increased to £65k.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Agreed - although arguably that is captured by the concept of post-tax income.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Indeed (notwithstanding tax take is already at record levels) but we seem to have stumbled into a world with more than one cliff edge, and then provided a mechanism to take the money untaxed (and without benefit loss) which is salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, and then we further incentivise this behaviour by giving higher rate tax relief on those contributions. It is madness.
My wife is a commercial model with an active Instagram account (several thousand followers). Blue tick verification.
Or she was until last night. Instagram took down her account permanently because of “account authenticity”. No appeals permitted - all her contacts and business dialogue vaporised.
Apparently the only way to address is to find a human at Instagram who is willing to make a request for a manual review by their team. Anyone have any contacts? Or any better suggestions?
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
The massive spikes in marginal rates at certain points (including too-rapid withdrawal of means tested benefits) are pretty clear examples of bad things according to Laffer theory. Even if some people ignore them, that's still the case.
What Laffer and his disciples never seem to mention is the left hand bit of the curve, where increasing rates increases revenue. Is there any particular reason to think that isn't where we are overall?
HMRC did an analysis under Osborne and reckoned about 47-48%
It’s why the top rate was cut from 50% to 45% (+2 NIC) and not reduced back to 40%
Italy are the worst team in the competition by a country mile.
I think they've played rather well in this tournament.
They have played well but they are still the worst team.
France have stolen a win off Scotland which clearly should have gone the other way and then fluked a draw against Italy they frankly didn't deserve. A very poor 6 nations for them. Even England are doing better.
The decision in the game against France was insane. The ball was clearly grounded. I am no Scotland fan - and am gutted that you have now won four in a row against us - but that was a gross injustice. Scotland should now be going for the Slam, but aren’t, because of that shambolic decision.
I really wouldn't fancy our chances against the Irish, to be honest, but it would have been an epic occasion. As it is I think that they will have sufficient bonus points against us that we cannot win even if we did.
Isn’t that what the grand slam bonus is designed to prevent?
Moldovan separatists to ask Putin to annexe their region
Rebel government to submit its request to Kremlin during a special congress on Wednesday
Given that Russia would first have to defeat and occupy most of Ukraine I would suggest this is a pretty pointless exercise by the separatists.
It'll be for the international tankies and their temporary fellow travellers, to justify Russia's claim over the southern Ukrainian coast through Odessa. "Russia must be able to rescue the Transnistrians from those evil Ukrainian Nazis!"
The same excuse will be used over Kaliningrad, at Lithuania and/or Poland's potential cost.
(No, I'm not saying that they'll be doing either this year. But the more such thoughts are normalised, the easier it will be if and when they are ready.)
Not this year, but in due course.
You have to admire the Russian strategy of the last few hundred years. Somehow they’ve managed to become the largest empire on the planet, and remain so to this day, without anyone noticing they’re an empire.
Hell they even manage to make common cause with “anti-imperialists” with no sense of irony.
I’m not sure what if anything will shake them from their colonial mentality. It’s not like Nazi Germany or Napoleonic France which made dramatic gains but over a short period, then lost them again. They’ve had an empire so long they’ve developed a sense of unshakeable entitlement.
It's not too difficult; they just understand western culture in the post truth era and are quite good at manipulating it. So a colonial power can become an anti colonial power, through the act of invading another country. People are essentially in a state of confusion, and there are no objective standards of truth any more, so they go along with it.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Eleven years old. Stayed up for the first result from Sunderland South. ITV had some kind of celebrity-politician gathering and they were giving out champagne coloured in each of the three main party colours - red for Labour supporters, blue for Tories and yellow for Lib Dems. At some point Margaret Thatcher turned up being practically carried by Edwina Currie.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Sorry but don’t you read this site - a lot of people have anecdotes to that effect. In my case one reason why I left the contract I had in November was that I was about to hit that £100,000 mark if I stayed any longer and an interesting contract elsewhere came up that was outside IR35.
Now I’ve probably lost £10,000 by taking that contract but I’ve also avoided £5000 in tax so the cost really wasn’t that significant and the project is more interesting
You did one thing, I did the opposite. That's 1-1.
I contend that for every person who thinks 'higher tax rate? - I'm going to work less and accept less income', there are several who will simply look for opportunities to work longer or get a better paid job to maintain or improve their standard of living.
Do I think the 'Laffer curve' is a true reflection of economic reality? No I don't.
I’ve come across people all up and down the income scale minimising tax by reducing hours, increasing pension contributions etc
A classic is the part time working trap where too many hours reduces benefits about as fast as you earn. So you are in a low paid job, generally tough, and they expect you to work more hours for next to no reward.
The common theme I come across is that “more than 50% is taking the piss”
That's a fair answer thank you.
I can see the psychological line that 50% marks so would accept its a fair upper limit to try to stick to. (Working UC claimants do of course face an effective 55% rate and have no choice but to suck it up.)
On the whole, I think we should move away from increasing taxation on incomes and instead tax wealth, albeit at a very low rate, with a high personal allowance.
What does need to happen though is the even up the taxation on ALL income - currently earned income for those below pension age is taxed higher than unearned income or eraned income for those over 66. That needs to be resolved.
The biggest advance would be merging IC and NI. But no one outside of PB seems to be interested in that suggestion.
The entire tax system is bent all out of shape by the dominance of the assetocracy. Thus, earned incomes - liquid capital that would otherwise be spent in the wider economy - are squeezed into oblivion by a combination of taxes and housing costs, whereas residential property (inert piles of bricks that do very little to boost economic activity or productivity) escalate in price completely out of control and are taxed very lightly indeed.
Thus we end up with one half of the population, the young and the poor, being screwed to death by costs and with nothing left to give, and the other half, the rich and the old, accruing vast piles of wealth that are barely taxed at all and either sit doing absolutely nothing or, at best, get funnelled into luxury spending.
It is overwhelmingly in the interest of the nation to move the burden of taxation from incomes to assets, and to throw up millions and millions of new homes as fast as possible. It is overwhelmingly in the interest of the largest voter bloc to stop this from happening. Hence, Britain is essentially finished. The collapsing healthcare system, the increasingly threadbare defences, the children trying to learn in unheated Portakabins, the courts that take years to hear cases and the jails that brutalise their inmates, all just some of the symptoms of a country and a society that is circling the plughole. Mass impoverishment and the decay of the state is the inevitable consequence of a political system geared entirely to ensuring that pensions and house prices grow faster than earnings.
My wife is a commercial model with an active Instagram account (several thousand followers). Blue tick verification.
Or she was until last night. Instagram took down her account permanently because of “account authenticity”. No appeals permitted - all her contacts and business dialogue vaporised.
Apparently the only way to address is to find a human at Instagram who is willing to make a request for a manual review by their team. Anyone have any contacts? Or any better suggestions?
Depending on how high profile, maybe an article in the press? Complete with link to a new account?
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
I believe this (state pension reform) is what will happen, but not for a couple of decades, so when I am about to retire after paying 40+ years of national insurance contributions. It will be massively annoying because all the saving in to private pension schemes will have been for nothing, whilst all those who spent money endlessly and frivolously without building up any pension provision will not be affected.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
So, you're saying that anyone who claims that the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded?
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
I believe this (state pension reform) is what will happen, but not for a couple of decades, so when I am about to retire after paying 40+ years of national insurance contributions. It will be massively annoying because all the saving in to private pension schemes will have been for nothing, whilst all those who spent money endlessly and frivolously without building up any pension provision will not be affected.
It does seem more and more that there is a reward for not making any commitments to your future
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
So, you're saying that anyone who claims that the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded?
It obviously exists. where the sweet spot is well thats up for debate
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
If you think the Laffer curve is a valid reflection of economic reality please tell me what percentage tax rate delivers the peak tax take.
Last time we had this discussion I went to the effort of digging out the HMRC analysis from about a decade ago and linked to it. But I guess you didn’t bother to read it.
It is around 47-48% I believe (FWIW that would align with my personal view that taking more than 50% of someone’s income in tax feels wrong).
But this is all complicated by the fact that everyone has a different personal curve (elasticity of propensity to work) and what we call the “Laffer curve” is an aggregate.
Good evening everyone. A dry day at last, so knackered from a busy day in the garden. The first election I remember staying up for was 1974, when Harold Wilson, the greatest PM of my lifetime so far, was elected. The first election I was involved in was October 1974, after I had become an SNP member, and we increased our vote from 6,000 in February to 10,000 in October.In June, At the time, this was a major achievement. In June, I will have been an SNP member for 50 years, and the last three years have been the most difficult, as the SNP have changed from being a purely pro independence party to a party more interested in social policy. Unfortunately, Alba have not shown themselves to be a realistic alternative, so there is still not a non left wing pro Independence party.
Anyone that claims the laffer curve does not exist is deluded. It is obvious that at a 0% tax rate you get no revenue as you arent taxing, at a 100% you get no revenue because why bother working if the state takes it all anyway.
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
So, you're saying that anyone who claims that the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded?
I claim that anyone who denies the existence of some kind of “laffer curve” doesn’t, themselves, exist.
BTW, that exit poll in 1992 was really rubbish. Their central forecast was that the Tories would be short by 25 but they thought Labour might be the largest party, albeit 13 short of a majority. In fact the Tories had a majority of 22.
Its hard to remember how bad these were given the much, much improved accuracy of more recent exit polls.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
The massive spikes in marginal rates at certain points (including too-rapid withdrawal of means tested benefits) are pretty clear examples of bad things according to Laffer theory. Even if some people ignore them, that's still the case.
What Laffer and his disciples never seem to mention is the left hand bit of the curve, where increasing rates increases revenue. Is there any particular reason to think that isn't where we are overall?
HMRC did an analysis under Osborne and reckoned about 47-48%
It’s why the top rate was cut from 50% to 45% (+2 NIC) and not reduced back to 40%
Interesting that matches my anecdotal evidence - just below 50% is where behaviour changes in a big way.
Interesting to read the various perspectives on unemployment. In East Ham, so @another_richard informs me, we have an unemployment rate of 7.1%. There are shops with vacancies and you do sometimes see a young person go in and ask if there are any jobs going.
As others have said, it's supply and demand. To re-iterate something I said a few days ago - if 20 people apply for 10 jobs you have unemployment, if 10 people apply for 10 jobs you have full employment, if 5 people apply for 10 jobs you don't have full employment but under employment.
For all those wishing to parade "full" employment as indicative of how successful the current Government is (and why, presumably, we should vote to keep them in office) I'd offer the thought many areas in the public sector are operating with significant (up to 25% if not higher) levels of vacancies. These are primarily in specialist areas such as law, finance, property management and other profssions where the private sector offers a more attractive financial package and better career prospects (to be honest) but the staff shortages are spreading right through the organisations down to and including starters and graduate trainees.
I'd argue under employment is as big a problem as unemployment in that it hinders productivity growth, investment and with fewer people working the economy doesn't improve.
Does that beg the question of numbers going to University as others mentioned earlier? Could we not see employers made able, via tax incentives, to offer a viable alternative to University education? It's certainly been talked about and the notion of a new generation of apprentices has been mentioned more than once but rather like an apprentice jockey serving his or her "time" with a particular trainer, the argument seemed to be the trained employee would commit to a period ot time with the firm providing the training so what of mobility within the work force?
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
I believe this (state pension reform) is what will happen, but not for a couple of decades, so when I am about to retire after paying 40+ years of national insurance contributions. It will be massively annoying because all the saving in to private pension schemes will have been for nothing, whilst all those who spent money endlessly and frivolously without building up any pension provision will not be affected.
It does seem more and more that there is a reward for not making any commitments to your future
A large proportion of the population can't afford to make such commitments - the consequence of high taxation, the prevalence of low wage crap jobs and ruinous housing costs. Moreover, those who can do so first and foremost by scrambling desperately onto the housing ladder, even at the cost of shouldering a colossal mortgage (which is likely still to be less expensive than renting.)
Put brutally, private pensions are pretty useless unless you can put away a healthy sum annually from youth, or a huge sum from middle age - because, of course, people live too long from a financial point of view, so they are enormously expensive to fund well. It's therefore logical for your average worker to shovel money into property if they possibly can, so that you aren't renting until you die, and contribute either nothing to a pension or a token sum (which makes you feel virtuous but will turn out to be all but useless when you retire.)
A decent private pension is the sort of thing lots of Boomers accrued through generous final salary schemes, almost all of which closed to contributions a long time ago. Trying to build up one up in today's economic environment is luxury spending for the very well off.
Thanks Dismal Decline Manager, you useless pillock.
MR-D applies. I mean he's built his whole reputation on a fake theory that panders to the desire of the rich to avoid taxes.
You can see that his theory works - a lot of people ensure they don’t earn more than £50,000 or £100,000 by either putting money into their pension or simply reducing their hours.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
A few do for sure but I await the evidence that many do.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Just on this site we had @Foxy planning to reduce his hours because of an analogous pensions issue, while @Casino_Royale has considered it. I believe @eek may have limited his work in the past as well.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
There is also a loss of child benefits issue at the £100,000 mark.
Tax cliffs like that are a bad idea and should be eradicated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a progressive taxation system, nor does it mean that overall taxes should be cut.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
Nope what we need to do is stop spending so much. I am sure you will ask me how and if you do I will put some examples forward. They might surprise you.
Go on, you know you want to...
Briefly I would means test all benefits. There is no reason we should be paying state pension to rich pensioners for a start. All benefits become a safety net rather than a way to improve/supplement standard of living.
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
I believe this (state pension reform) is what will happen, but not for a couple of decades, so when I am about to retire after paying 40+ years of national insurance contributions. It will be massively annoying because all the saving in to private pension schemes will have been for nothing, whilst all those who spent money endlessly and frivolously without building up any pension provision will not be affected.
I see some more people have discovered “negative income tax”. Which is an interesting idea, with much theoretical history.
Personally, I like a UBI.
The problem is politicians would immediately try and add exceptions, exemptions and all kinds of nonsense.
Italy are the worst team in the competition by a country mile.
I think they've played rather well in this tournament.
They have played well but they are still the worst team.
France have stolen a win off Scotland which clearly should have gone the other way and then fluked a draw against Italy they frankly didn't deserve. A very poor 6 nations for them. Even England are doing better.
The decision in the game against France was insane. The ball was clearly grounded. I am no Scotland fan - and am gutted that you have now won four in a row against us - but that was a gross injustice. Scotland should now be going for the Slam, but aren’t, because of that shambolic decision.
I really wouldn't fancy our chances against the Irish, to be honest, but it would have been an epic occasion. As it is I think that they will have sufficient bonus points against us that we cannot win even if we did.
Isn’t that what the grand slam bonus is designed to prevent?
Yes, but if we beat Ireland no one will have a grand slam. Ireland may well have 4 bonus points and we will have a maximum of 3 (and even that assumes something truly extraordinary against the phenomenal Irish defence).
Comments
Hard to especially follow UK politics as much until my return to the UK in 2000, so my first major British election was the first one I voted in too, 2001. It was a fairly boring election to be honest and the first (and only so far) election that I voted Labour in. By 2005 I was really worried about the debt that Brown was running up so I voted Tory despite my major misgivings over Michael Howard, it wasn't until Cameron that the Tories had a leader I could respect.
"The rich" are on a maximum tax rate of 47% if that.
Someone on Universal Credit can be on 70%+
Someone around 50k or 100k earnings can be on ridiculous rates too.
We need to cut rates, but cut rates where they're at their highest - which is not on the rich, its on those caught by the traps in the tax system.
The problem then is that he hasn’t said to fix that problem he talks about a tax band few workers actually care about because they will never earn that much
Which served as the inspiration for one of the greatest Yes Minister gags: 'Will you tell the press about the messages room or shall I?'
The first election I actually stayed up for significant chunks of was 2005.
Worse they generate so much money that both of them are going to be exceedingly difficult to fix
I was still at primary school, so remember the early campaign during the easter holidays most of all. It seemed like the entire media establishment had turned against the Tories, and were busily hurling all the shit that they'd been saving up for years. I remember feeling sorry for the Tories more than anything else - the impression I got was that they'd tried hard, things had gone their way for a while, but that they'd badly overstayed their welcome.
There was an endless series of new scandals, with poor old Brian Mawhinney being sent out to face questions on BBC Breakfast and the One O'Clock News. I can still see in my mind's eye him grinning and shrugging his shoulders when confronted with each new disaster.
When I was working and earning in that bracket I was 100% focused on doing the best job I could, earning bigger bonuses, and showing that I was worthy of larger roles and thus a bigger salary.
Aaron Bell MP
@AaronBell4NUL
🧵THREAD
On Friday evening I was supposed to be attending a fundraising dinner for our PCC
@benadams4staffs
.
Shortly before I set off to attend, I was informed by colleagues who had got there early that there was a substantial protest, and that they were awaiting the police.
https://twitter.com/AaronBell4NUL/status/1761818163455377690
The Internet never forgets.
Nothing “peaceful” about this mob who came to harass and intimidate people. If anything it looks more like hate.
Storming into a private event, shouting aggressively at people, using terms like “zionist” in a way which some people may perceive as racist, and targeting people… x.com/luqmann_97/sta…
The protest was not limited to outside the venue - some of them managed to gain entry and shout aggressively at people, Foolishly the ringleaders filmed themselves doing this and posting it on social media (see
@GullisJonathan
’s thread for more details).
The police subsequently advised that they could not guarantee people’s safety and advised them to leave (and advised me not to come altogether). The force was stretched across multiple incidents on Friday night, and I am grateful for them protecting everyone’s safety, …
…but for a fundraising dinner to be cancelled by the mob is an infringement of the democratic process which cannot and should not be tolerated.
Earlier this week, we saw an outrageous and unprecedented ruling by the Speaker, which he subsequently claimed was designed to keep MPs safe. But giving in to terror and intimidation never works; it only encourages more of the same.
I am pleased by the subsequent reaction of
@StaffsPolice
and the fact that they have now made an arrest, but clearly the intimidation that politicians at all levels (and their supporters) are enduring is beyond unacceptable.
The scenes in London every week at protest marches and around Parliament are normalising a very disturbing state of affairs.
I will continue to represent Newcastle and stand up for my constituents, and for my beliefs, without being cowed by these disgraceful antics - which the PSC laughably described as “democracy in action”.
But my staff and my family should not feel that they may be at risk because of the job that I do.
As the Prime Minister
@RishiSunak
said earlier today, our democracy cannot and must not bend to the threat of violence and intimidation.
Made me laugh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F48IgoJcrK4
Now I’ve probably lost £10,000 by taking that contract but I’ve also avoided £5000 in tax so the cost really wasn’t that significant and the project is more interesting
I was gripped, and I have been hooked ever since. The televisual thrill of a good election is impossible to beat. But the real damage to my sanity and general well-being in future years was seeing the Liberals get 19% of the votes, but only a dozen seats. I genuinely had no idea that elections could, or would, work like that. I was outraged that nice Mr Thorpe could have been cheated in that way. So I started to pay more attention to politics generally. The local library (remember them?) was where I got my political books from, and I paid more attention to political broadcasts, broadsheet newspapers and the like. My uncle had been a significant (salaried) official of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and my parents were probably Conservatives (we were too polite to discuss such things) but there's no doubt about it - the February General Election of 1974 made me a Liberal.
Donald Trump has attacked Prince Harry for his 'unforgiveable betrayal' of the late Queen as he criticised the Biden administration's handling of the Duke's US visa application.
The former US president criticised the way that the Biden administration is 'protecting Harry' in the visa battle over the Duke of Sussex's drug use.
'I wouldn't protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That's unforgiveable. He would be on his own if it was down to me,' Mr Trump exclusively told the Sunday Express and added: 'I think they have been too gracious to him after what he has done.'
was insane. The ball was clearly grounded. I am no Scotland fan - and am gutted that you have now won four in a row against us - but that was a gross injustice. Scotland should now be going for the Slam, but aren’t, because of that shambolic decision.
It was grounded. They were robbed.
I contend that for every person who thinks 'higher tax rate? - I'm going to work less and accept less income', there are several who will simply look for opportunities to work longer or get a better paid job to maintain or improve their standard of living.
Do I think the 'Laffer curve' is a true reflection of economic reality? No I don't.
Coming from a Tory voting family and being about to be the first of my family to go to University, I wanted a Thatcher victory so was pleased with the result - I would go on to vote Tory in 87 having been a member of Conservative, Labour and PC societies at Cardiff University in the intervening years (The latter because it allowed you entry to the PC Club which was the only place you could get a drink in Cardiff after hours on a Sunday evening).
With the exception of the 2001 GE where the Tory candidate was a personal friend, I would never vote Tory again.
Ultimately it comes down to work life balance
If you reduce the post-tax income from an hour of additional work then it because relatively less attractive vs an hour of leisure.
A memory from 1970. I was 15. A teacher said 'Attend a hustings'. So I did - in my area of Southgate, a safe (Anthony Berry) Tory seat. The Labour candidate angrily rejected an accusation that he was sympathetic to Palestinians, amid hissing and shock. In Southgate such sympathies were unthinkable. And, I remember him also saying "This safe Tory seat will one day fall to the Labour party". And everyone laughed. This too was unthinkable. And I remembered that at the moment I saw Portillo beaten, in that very seat (by then called Enfield Southgate).
I was eight.
I’ve avoided rewatching the coverage on iPlayer, as it’s likely to produce false memories of the event.
The same excuse will be used over Kaliningrad, at Lithuania and/or Poland's potential cost.
(No, I'm not saying that they'll be doing either this year. But the more such thoughts are normalised, the easier it will be if and when they are ready.)
I'd say it was a partial meritocracy, but sadly there was a good slice of 'who you know'.
Obviously, when I got promoted it was on merit; when I got passed over 'who you know' was clearly operating. ;-)
I was quite keen on bridge when I was older and I think I got the bug at that time.
By 1979, the chances of a Tory winning any seat in inner Liverpool (or even surviving unscathed) were virtually zero, so the Liberals won. And for a few years, Liverpool remained an apparently inexplicable outpost of Liberal seats.
The country does not pay its way - we need higher taxation not lower, at least for a time. Either that or decide which of health, defence, policing, education, welfare, etc. we want to abandon and no longer offer as a service in this country.
A classic is the part time working trap where too many hours reduces benefits about as fast as you earn. So you are in a low paid job, generally tough, and they expect you to work more hours for next to no reward.
The common theme I come across is that “more than 50% is taking the piss”
So I don't think it is really a case of people not wanting to 'do the right thing', the situation is complex.
What Laffer and his disciples never seem to mention is the left hand bit of the curve, where increasing rates increases revenue. Is there any particular reason to think that isn't where we are overall?
You have to admire the Russian strategy of the last few hundred years. Somehow they’ve managed to become the largest empire on the planet, and remain so to this day, without anyone noticing they’re an empire.
Hell they even manage to make common cause with “anti-imperialists” with no sense of irony.
I’m not sure what if anything will shake them from their colonial mentality. It’s not like Nazi Germany or Napoleonic France which made dramatic gains but over a short period, then lost them again. They’ve had an empire so long they’ve developed a sense of unshakeable entitlement.
It is around 47-48% I believe (FWIW that would align with my personal view that taking more than 50% of someone’s income in tax feels wrong).
But this is all complicated by the fact that everyone has a different personal curve (elasticity of propensity to work) and what we call the “Laffer curve” is an aggregate.
I can see the psychological line that 50% marks so would accept its a fair upper limit to try to stick to. (Working UC claimants do of course face an effective 55% rate and have no choice but to suck it up.)
On the whole, I think we should move away from increasing taxation on incomes and instead tax wealth, albeit at a very low rate, with a high personal allowance.
What does need to happen though is the even up the taxation on ALL income - currently earned income for those below pension age is taxed higher than unearned income or eraned income for those over 66. That needs to be resolved.
My wife is a commercial model with an active Instagram account (several thousand followers). Blue tick verification.
Or she was until last night. Instagram took down her account permanently because of “account authenticity”. No appeals permitted - all her contacts and business dialogue vaporised.
Apparently the only way to address is to find a human at Instagram who is willing to make a request for a manual review by their team. Anyone have any contacts? Or any better suggestions?
Now the common argument against this, which many people on all sides seem to adhere to, is that it ultimately costs more than it makes but that seems to me to be a daft argument. We already means test everyone in the country when determining their level of taxation - all the more so given these days so many people operate outside PAYE due to the Gig economy and many other non standard employment methods.
So use the tax assessment system as a means of assessing what people need to be given just as we do what they need to pay in tax. And be tough about it. If you have a private or employer pension which is better than the State pension then you should not be receiving the state pension in addition. Get rid of all those pensioner perks that successive governments have used to bribe supporters.
In addition make the minimum wage a genuine living wage. Why should the State be subsidising employers to pay wages which are below that necessary for people to live? If your company is not viable paying a reasonable wage then you don't deserve to be in business.
These are just a couple of examples. I have plenty more.
It’s why the top rate was cut from 50% to 45% (+2 NIC) and not reduced back to 40%
Somewhere in between there will be a sweet spot where you get maximal revenue for the tax rate.
Anyone who claims the laffer curve doesn't exist is deluded. Now I expect the laffer curve to differ country to country depending on what they value more yes.
Eleven years old. Stayed up for the first result from Sunderland South. ITV had some kind of celebrity-politician gathering and they were giving out champagne coloured in each of the three main party colours - red for Labour supporters, blue for Tories and yellow for Lib Dems. At some point Margaret Thatcher turned up being practically carried by Edwina Currie.
Thus we end up with one half of the population, the young and the poor, being screwed to death by costs and with nothing left to give, and the other half, the rich and the old, accruing vast piles of wealth that are barely taxed at all and either sit doing absolutely nothing or, at best, get funnelled into luxury spending.
It is overwhelmingly in the interest of the nation to move the burden of taxation from incomes to assets, and to throw up millions and millions of new homes as fast as possible. It is overwhelmingly in the interest of the largest voter bloc to stop this from happening. Hence, Britain is essentially finished. The collapsing healthcare system, the increasingly threadbare defences, the children trying to learn in unheated Portakabins, the courts that take years to hear cases and the jails that brutalise their inmates, all just some of the symptoms of a country and a society that is circling the plughole. Mass impoverishment and the decay of the state is the inevitable consequence of a political system geared entirely to ensuring that pensions and house prices grow faster than earnings.
I did read it.
Its hard to remember how bad these were given the much, much improved accuracy of more recent exit polls.
Interesting to read the various perspectives on unemployment. In East Ham, so @another_richard informs me, we have an unemployment rate of 7.1%. There are shops with vacancies and you do sometimes see a young person go in and ask if there are any jobs going.
As others have said, it's supply and demand. To re-iterate something I said a few days ago - if 20 people apply for 10 jobs you have unemployment, if 10 people apply for 10 jobs you have full employment, if 5 people apply for 10 jobs you don't have full employment but under employment.
For all those wishing to parade "full" employment as indicative of how successful the current Government is (and why, presumably, we should vote to keep them in office) I'd offer the thought many areas in the public sector are operating with significant (up to 25% if not higher) levels of vacancies. These are primarily in specialist areas such as law, finance, property management and other profssions where the private sector offers a more attractive financial package and better career prospects (to be honest) but the staff shortages are spreading right through the organisations down to and including starters and graduate trainees.
I'd argue under employment is as big a problem as unemployment in that it hinders productivity growth, investment and with fewer people working the economy doesn't improve.
Does that beg the question of numbers going to University as others mentioned earlier? Could we not see employers made able, via tax incentives, to offer a viable alternative to University education? It's certainly been talked about and the notion of a new generation of apprentices has been mentioned more than once but rather like an apprentice jockey serving his or her "time" with a particular trainer, the argument seemed to be the trained employee would commit to a period ot time with the firm providing the training so what of mobility within the work force?
Put brutally, private pensions are pretty useless unless you can put away a healthy sum annually from youth, or a huge sum from middle age - because, of course, people live too long from a financial point of view, so they are enormously expensive to fund well. It's therefore logical for your average worker to shovel money into property if they possibly can, so that you aren't renting until you die, and contribute either nothing to a pension or a token sum (which makes you feel virtuous but will turn out to be all but useless when you retire.)
A decent private pension is the sort of thing lots of Boomers accrued through generous final salary schemes, almost all of which closed to contributions a long time ago. Trying to build up one up in today's economic environment is luxury spending for the very well off.
Personally, I like a UBI.
The problem is politicians would immediately try and add exceptions, exemptions and all kinds of nonsense.