Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

George Osborne is right – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    They're not really 'trees' as we know them either, more like gigantic horsetail ferns.

    Then again land plants only appeared 425m years ago according to wiki so yes Earth, at least dry land, was super dull for 4bn years.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,481
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    I think the taxation of pensioners ought to be looked at - and perhaps will if, as looks possible, NI is submerged into IT. But the state pension itself is a sort of Universal Basic Income for old people and as such has the advantage of preventing most of the most abject poverty + does not discourage personal saving/planning for retirement income.
    The problem is that we have been sold on the idea we pay for it by NI. That has been nonsense for a very long time but the link is being broken completely with these cuts in NI. The consolidation of NI into IT is to be welcomed and is an excellent opportunity to do away with a very expensive universal benefit that is, by definition, poorly targeted.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    I understand that a much missed user and friend will shortly be joining the site again.

    Neigh, they said in delight
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,947
    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    Hence coal?
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,650
    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    This is true but for all the billions of years that evolved forms of life were around that hadn't yet developed a sense of time or values about dullness, or indeed any sensory awareness at all, the effluxion of time makes no difference whatever and for all practical purposes didn't exist. Just as there was no light, no colour, no sound. (A point which amazed Schopenhauer when he first lit upon it).
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,231
    HYUFD said:

    Rise and Fall of Boris Johnson on C4 now

    They managed to get behind the scenes footage of him discussing strategy:

    https://youtu.be/Xb82v7wh1Fw
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,057

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    They're not really 'trees' as we know them either, more like gigantic horsetail ferns.

    Then again land plants only appeared 425m years ago according to wiki so yes Earth, at least dry land, was super dull for 4bn years.
    Ooh, open access for the primary paper, good for them.

    https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/abs/10.1144/jgs2023-204
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822
    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    Foxy said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    Hence coal?
    So it would seam.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822

    I understand that a much missed user and friend will shortly be joining the site again.

    Neigh, they said in delight

    Will you and he get into deep conversations with each other, like Colin and Leon are doing tonight?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    Colin said:

    Leon said:

    Colin said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    Honestly mate its water off a ducks back. I know people resort to ad hominem personal attacks when they have no other arguments. Nice photo by the way.
    I mean, you may be a bot, or you may not. You may be a Putinite shill, or not. EVEN IF YOU ARE you should be politely received - even welcomed as a newbie - until and unless you break some major rule that provokes a ban

    This site is dying because of a deadly dull Woke consensus that doesn’t just react badly to right wing opinions, it secretly (or not-so-secretly) yearns to forbid them entirely. In that it reflects so much modern discourse. Unfortunately
    Ive monitored this site for a while. Amazingly the so called Putinist shills have been totally correct about the ukraine war and the consensus on here embarrassingly wrong although i will admit you yourself finally came round to a better way of seeing things. But as for the likes of Bartholomew Roberts totally laughable.
    Punctuation and capitalisation needs more work; back to troll-school for you.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,041

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Great times to be filling your boots at the crony trough.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,369
    This charming man.


  • Options
    ColinColin Posts: 70

    Colin said:

    Leon said:

    Colin said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    Honestly mate its water off a ducks back. I know people resort to ad hominem personal attacks when they have no other arguments. Nice photo by the way.
    I mean, you may be a bot, or you may not. You may be a Putinite shill, or not. EVEN IF YOU ARE you should be politely received - even welcomed as a newbie - until and unless you break some major rule that provokes a ban

    This site is dying because of a deadly dull Woke consensus that doesn’t just react badly to right wing opinions, it secretly (or not-so-secretly) yearns to forbid them entirely. In that it reflects so much modern discourse. Unfortunately
    Ive monitored this site for a while. Amazingly the so called Putinist shills have been totally correct about the ukraine war and the consensus on here embarrassingly wrong although i will admit you yourself finally came round to a better way of seeing things. But as for the likes of Bartholomew Roberts totally laughable.
    Punctuation and capitalisation needs more work; back to troll-school for you.
    Proved my point again. Ad hominem attacks. Please do better (though you probably arent capable).
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    I understand that a much missed user and friend will shortly be joining the site again.

    Neigh, they said in delight

    Will you and he get into deep conversations with each other, like Colin and Leon are doing tonight?
    I will have to leave if they come back as personally I cannot stand them
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822

    This charming man.


    Bigmouth strikes again.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    What the hell is that abomination of a beer?

    The word “light” should never appear on beer.
    I hear you. I thought it would be disgusting, like Bud Lite

    It’’s not. It’s delicious. 3.5% and gorgeously crisp and cold and hoppy and perfect for this jungle climate
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370

    This charming man.


    There’s no way to interpret that other than the obvious is there. No claiming he meant something else. Has he binned all pretence?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,481

    Have been up since 03:45 for a work trip to London, currently relaxing in the exec lounge at Hilton Wembley with a comp beer. Budget sounds like the dampest of wet squibs from what I can read...

    I would agree. It certainly wasn’t a launchpad for an election campaign.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    Colin said:

    Colin said:

    Leon said:

    Colin said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    Honestly mate its water off a ducks back. I know people resort to ad hominem personal attacks when they have no other arguments. Nice photo by the way.
    I mean, you may be a bot, or you may not. You may be a Putinite shill, or not. EVEN IF YOU ARE you should be politely received - even welcomed as a newbie - until and unless you break some major rule that provokes a ban

    This site is dying because of a deadly dull Woke consensus that doesn’t just react badly to right wing opinions, it secretly (or not-so-secretly) yearns to forbid them entirely. In that it reflects so much modern discourse. Unfortunately
    Ive monitored this site for a while. Amazingly the so called Putinist shills have been totally correct about the ukraine war and the consensus on here embarrassingly wrong although i will admit you yourself finally came round to a better way of seeing things. But as for the likes of Bartholomew Roberts totally laughable.
    Punctuation and capitalisation needs more work; back to troll-school for you.
    Proved my point again. Ad hominem attacks. Please do better (though you probably arent capable).
    I'm merely trying to help you fit in better. Don't take it personally, your English is streets ahead of my Russian. (It's aren't with an apostrophe by the way.)
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 808
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    That is true but if people do that they boost current consumption and growth. And my proposal would be that the tapering would be gradual so those with private pensions of up to £22k would still get the full pension. Those on £33k would be getting half and only those on more than £44k would get none at all. By that point you are well above the average income.
    The savings would be immense and allow us to support those who really need it more.
    You're running into the same 'high marginal rate' issue workers face at some points right now, like with child tax credit.

    £10k of extra 'taxes' as lost benefits over £20k (between £22k and £42k) is an additional marginal rate of 50%, plus income tax, brings us to a marginal rate of 70% for pensioners.

    All that would ensure is people don't save via the pension system, unless you are unusual in having a pension of significantly more than £40k pa (which I expect requires the best part of £1m).

    Or you have a longer taper or say between £22k and £62k, so a marginal tax rate of between 40% and 60% in total, but in which case the numbers caught by the new rule will be very limited.

    Not an easy problem to crack.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,677
    edited March 6

    This charming man.


    Quite like this response from Tom Tugendhat.

    For context, the closest Laurence has ever gotten to the battlefield was on a film set.

    I’m proud to remember the courage of our soldiers, not the empty words of a loudmouth.


    https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1765482341588242944
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    edited March 6

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    And mugs of tea.

    And tea in polystyrene cups on the roadside. It tastes better than the papery ones.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,481

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    edited March 6
    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    I'm also told that the 40% rate cut for tv and movie production venues has gone down very well. A friend in the TV industry has suggested it unblocks two of their potential investments in the UK for new soundstages, one in Cardiff and one somewhere in the North.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,035
    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    Land plants are quite a bit older, but not that much at c. 600m years I think.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    Ratters said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    That is true but if people do that they boost current consumption and growth. And my proposal would be that the tapering would be gradual so those with private pensions of up to £22k would still get the full pension. Those on £33k would be getting half and only those on more than £44k would get none at all. By that point you are well above the average income.
    The savings would be immense and allow us to support those who really need it more.
    You're running into the same 'high marginal rate' issue workers face at some points right now, like with child tax credit.

    £10k of extra 'taxes' as lost benefits over £20k (between £22k and £42k) is an additional marginal rate of 50%, plus income tax, brings us to a marginal rate of 70% for pensioners.

    All that would ensure is people don't save via the pension system, unless you are unusual in having a pension of significantly more than £40k pa (which I expect requires the best part of £1m).

    Or you have a longer taper or say between £22k and £62k, so a marginal tax rate of between 40% and 60% in total, but in which case the numbers caught by the new rule will be very limited.

    Not an easy problem to crack.
    I mean, you could abolish the pension and just give unemployment benefit for those who can’t work, with age being a possible argument to not seek a job and get disability benefit.

    I need to run away now don’t I.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,481
    algarkirk said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    What the hell is that abomination of a beer?

    The word “light” should never appear on beer.
    I would hate to start an argument, but regardless of the merits of the word 'light' on beer, there is, I assert one interesting fact about beer. Which is that non-alcoholic beer actually tastes of beer, whereas non-alcoholic wine tastes of nothing interesting at all, and certainly has no relation to wine. Do others think the same?
    It wasn’t always so but it is now. I had Heineken Zero with my curry tonight. Was it as great as Kingfisher? No, but it was fine.

    I wonder if wines have just had less investment at the alcohol free end.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822
    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,481
    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    Given the direction of policy in the last decade, is this an argument to close the site down?
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,018
    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    What the hell is that abomination of a beer?

    The word “light” should never appear on beer.
    I would hate to start an argument, but regardless of the merits of the word 'light' on beer, there is, I assert one interesting fact about beer. Which is that non-alcoholic beer actually tastes of beer, whereas non-alcoholic wine tastes of nothing interesting at all, and certainly has no relation to wine. Do others think the same?
    It wasn’t always so but it is now. I had Heineken Zero with my curry tonight. Was it as great as Kingfisher? No, but it was fine.

    I wonder if wines have just had less investment at the alcohol free end.
    Alcohol is generally a much smaller part of beer (~5% rather than 10-15%) so you probably miss it less. An alcohol free Trappist might not work as well
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    We've also found bacteria that is extremely efficient at breaking down plastics into it's basic parts in those mega dump sites across India and China. ~10x more efficient than our best industrial processes. It's almost as though evolutionary pressure is really powerful.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,947

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
    When fiscal drag is included, people earning £25 000 or less will be paying more tax, as will those earning £60 000+.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
    When fiscal drag is included, people earning £25 000 or less will be paying more tax, as will those earning £60 000+.
    Neither of those are middle incomes though. Sub 25k is basically minimum wage, and over 60k is roughly double the median income.

    So it seems pretty well targeted at cutting the tax burden of those working for a living on middle incomes, while others see tax rises.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,183
    Sunak must go.

    And go now.



    To the country.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    And mugs of tea.

    And tea in polystyrene cups on the roadside. It tastes better than the papery ones.
    Did fish and chips taste better when wrapped in newspaper?

    They probably didn’t. Indeed they probably only used newspaper for the outer wrapping?

    But it was romantic and they DID taste better, dammit
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
    When fiscal drag is included, people earning £25 000 or less will be paying more tax, as will those earning £60 000+.
    On £60k plus it’s a weird one though isn’t it? Yes, worse off than in the counter-factual where thresholds rose, but it might feel like a cut because net pay will increase vs. today.

    The 2026 move on child benefit, if Labour keeps it, will be the big prize for many on £50-100k I guess.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    Shall we have another stab at abolishing the triple-lock?

    Also, tidal power anyone?
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,262
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    What the hell is that abomination of a beer?

    The word “light” should never appear on beer.
    "They don't spell Australian beer with four Xs out of ignorance - they mean what they say. And light beer is an invention of the Prince of Darkness."

    -- Chief Inspector Morse, in that weird Australian episode.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,254

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.

    Giles Coren, The Times restaurant critic, recently reviewed a greasy spoon in London. He was very impressed with the baked beans which the owner informed him we "catering" beans, not available for domestic consumption...

    My old (subsidised) staff canteen used to do a fried breakfast. The eggs were done and placed on top of a piece of fried bread. You could take the egg with or without the slice. Epic.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
    The national living wage is one I remember. I remember banging on about pushing up the minimum wage and using it as a tool for poverty reduction and slowly eliminating wage subsidies like tax credits. Around a year or so after I started banging on about it here a few Tory think tanks also started banging on about the idea too and in the 2015 post election budget Osborne introduced tha national living wage for everyone aged of 24 or over and now everyone aged 21 or over qualifies and will earn £11.44 or ~£24k per year for a full time worker, taking a double income household with two people working full time well above the poverty line and far above the thresholds for tax credits.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,438
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    We've also found bacteria that is extremely efficient at breaking down plastics into it's basic parts in those mega dump sites across India and China. ~10x more efficient than our best industrial processes. It's almost as though evolutionary pressure is really powerful.
    For all the damage the oil spills do, it’s important to remember that the oil is broken down by bacteria, fairly quickly. Nature is amazing. Currently tangentially working on a project tailoring yeast production of specific types of fatty acids. Who needs palm oil when you can get get yeast to grow an equivalent?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    It's also - and I'm sure you know this - why we have massive coal deposits. It is essentially impossible for them to form now because they just get eaten away by bacteria before they have a chance to turn into coal.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    And mugs of tea.

    And tea in polystyrene cups on the roadside. It tastes better than the papery ones.
    Did fish and chips taste better when wrapped in newspaper?

    They probably didn’t. Indeed they probably only used newspaper for the outer wrapping?

    But it was romantic and they DID taste better, dammit
    I think the wrapper does change things. It’s like paper straws - they ruin drinks.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,947
    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    Given the direction of policy in the last decade, is this an argument to close the site down?
    I look forward to our giant space cannon, and genetically engineered enormo-haddock army.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    biggles said:

    This charming man.


    There’s no way to interpret that other than the obvious is there. No claiming he meant something else. Has he binned all pretence?
    it’s a typically crass remark but he’s right that it will get desecrated. It will become an obvious and perpetual target
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,254
    biggles said:

    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    The best blackpudding I ever found was at Whole Foods. Until Amazon closed it. Bastards.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,946
    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    "Snowball Earth" was a bit earlier I think (650m?) but still not long after very basic plants turned up. You can see some rocks from that time on Islay.

    Flowering plants took much much longer to appear.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,646
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
    When fiscal drag is included, people earning £25 000 or less will be paying more tax, as will those earning £60 000+.
    Median personal income is... what? About £30 000?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    We've also found bacteria that is extremely efficient at breaking down plastics into it's basic parts in those mega dump sites across India and China. ~10x more efficient than our best industrial processes. It's almost as though evolutionary pressure is really powerful.
    There's some really interesting research being done on using some of these bacteria to break down plastics and the like, and to output methane. It's not that surprising it's possible, of course, because they're all made out of hydrogen-carbon molecules.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    carnforth said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    What the hell is that abomination of a beer?

    The word “light” should never appear on beer.
    "They don't spell Australian beer with four Xs out of ignorance - they mean what they say. And light beer is an invention of the Prince of Darkness."

    -- Chief Inspector Morse, in that weird Australian episode.
    I am with Morse on most things from beer to the Times crossword. It’s only his dislike of cricket that lets him down.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,947
    Next financial year we'll speed up rape trials, reduce all the court backlogs, and have more prisoners than at any time in our history; and all on a budget that's half a billion less than this year. Forgive my scepticism.

    https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/1765420605396971892?t=Qo3TgjnIWEMcnw2CIEYF6Q&s=19

    The Tories just know they are going to be in opposition, don't they?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    And mugs of tea.

    And tea in polystyrene cups on the roadside. It tastes better than the papery ones.
    Did fish and chips taste better when wrapped in newspaper?

    They probably didn’t. Indeed they probably only used newspaper for the outer wrapping?

    But it was romantic and they DID taste better, dammit
    When I was a kid fish and chips always tasted best in the Hastings and St Leonards Observer.

    (But to be fair that is all the Hastings and St Leonards Observer was good for.)
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,822
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
    The national living wage is one I remember. I remember banging on about pushing up the minimum wage and using it as a tool for poverty reduction and slowly eliminating wage subsidies like tax credits. Around a year or so after I started banging on about it here a few Tory think tanks also started banging on about the idea too and in the 2015 post election budget Osborne introduced tha national living wage for everyone aged of 24 or over and now everyone aged 21 or over qualifies and will earn £11.44 or ~£24k per year for a full time worker, taking a double income household with two people working full time well above the poverty line and far above the thresholds for tax credits.
    Yes tax credits/UC now is primarily for part timers or single parents, not due to low wages.

    Someone who works only 16 hours per week is never going to be on a high enough wage to support themselves and their kids from that.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,946
    edited March 6
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    It's also - and I'm sure you know this - why we have massive coal deposits. It is essentially impossible for them to form now because they just get eaten away by bacteria before they have a chance to turn into coal.
    Except in peat bogs. [Where not dug up for gardening...]
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    And mugs of tea.

    And tea in polystyrene cups on the roadside. It tastes better than the papery ones.
    Did fish and chips taste better when wrapped in newspaper?

    They probably didn’t. Indeed they probably only used newspaper for the outer wrapping?

    But it was romantic and they DID taste better, dammit
    I think the wrapper does change things. It’s like paper straws - they ruin drinks.
    Fish and chips - in any wrapping - definitely taste better on the run. Sitting on a wall or in a car or on a park bench, eating them with your fingers, hands all greasy, and salty, and vinegary, the crunch of the batter and the taste of beef dripping. Jumpers for goalposts!

    They’re never as good when you take them home and eat them off a plate
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 808

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    Shall we have another stab at abolishing the triple-lock?

    Also, tidal power anyone?
    How about replacing it was an 'inflation lock' with a 0% floor? Politically more viable than real-term pension cuts.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,370
    Scott_xP said:

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.

    Giles Coren, The Times restaurant critic, recently reviewed a greasy spoon in London. He was very impressed with the baked beans which the owner informed him we "catering" beans, not available for domestic consumption...

    My old (subsidised) staff canteen used to do a fried breakfast. The eggs were done and placed on top of a piece of fried bread. You could take the egg with or without the slice. Epic.
    I think the best beans on the high street are now branston. Heinz took out too much salt and failed to compensate.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    We've also found bacteria that is extremely efficient at breaking down plastics into it's basic parts in those mega dump sites across India and China. ~10x more efficient than our best industrial processes. It's almost as though evolutionary pressure is really powerful.
    There's some really interesting research being done on using some of these bacteria to break down plastics and the like, and to output methane. It's not that surprising it's possible, of course, because they're all made out of hydrogen-carbon molecules.
    India has a pretty big project to capture landfill methane output for energy use. It would be a game changer for climate change as well as it stops one of the primary sources of methane leaks into the atmosphere.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,254
    biggles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.

    Giles Coren, The Times restaurant critic, recently reviewed a greasy spoon in London. He was very impressed with the baked beans which the owner informed him we "catering" beans, not available for domestic consumption...

    My old (subsidised) staff canteen used to do a fried breakfast. The eggs were done and placed on top of a piece of fried bread. You could take the egg with or without the slice. Epic.
    I think the best beans on the high street are now branston. Heinz took out too much salt and failed to compensate.
    Can't believe how sweet Heinz taste
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,802

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    They're not really 'trees' as we know them either, more like gigantic horsetail ferns.

    Then again land plants only appeared 425m years ago according to wiki so yes Earth, at least dry land, was super dull for 4bn years.
    Amazing to think that only 15 million years later there was a fully developed ecosystem:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynie_chert
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,135

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    Is that really a fair comparison, though? Low income pensioners will, amongst other benefits in kind, receive pension credit. Very many recipients of the state pension will own their home outright and face very low costs, or have other pensions or substantial savings. Indeed a lot are neither asset nor cash poor.

    There are certainly poor pensioners - some very poor. But it's sleight of hand to suggest that the only or even best way to deal with that genuine issue is to keep upping the income of all pensioners including very rich ones.

    Further, it's just wrong to say that the triple lock merely ensures the existing state pension doesn't lose value. It ensures it gains value inexorably over time - it's the GREATER of average wage rises, inflation, or 2.5%. That might have been the right policy when it was established, and might even still be today, but it doesn't merely ensure it keeps up - it means it catches up.
    Time to trot out once again the fact that average pensioner incomes *after adjusting for housing costs* have already surpassed average incomes for working households. On top of that, as you allude to, the structure of the triple lock means that this gap must necessarily continue to widen over time: in every year that wage inflation isn't the greatest of the three elements that determine pension inflation under the triple lock, pensioner incomes will accelerate away from those of workers. And all this before also remembering that, because of all the wealth they've accumulated in hugely overpriced homes and old fashioned final salary pension schemes, something like a fifth of all pensioner households have assets valued in excess of £1m.

    This situation is completely unsustainable, but demography dictates that politicians do nothing but support its indefinite continuation. Half of the entire electorate is over 55. Most of them are already in receipt of triple locked pensions and the remainder are looking forward to getting them in the reasonably near future. They expect the triple lock to stay in place permanently and don't much care either who has to pay for it or what else needs cutting to keep it going.

    The only way that the pension bill might be kept under some measure of control is to raise the state retirement age so much and so fast that the period over which today's workers receive it is drastically reduced (with anyone who can't physically keep working into their seventies being made to try to live off derisory working age benefits, whilst the state does its best to pester and force them into carrying on until they drop down dead.) I don't expect the state handout to cease to exist, but I do expect today's twentysomethings to be made to wait until they're at least 75 before they get it.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    sarissa said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    They're not really 'trees' as we know them either, more like gigantic horsetail ferns.

    Then again land plants only appeared 425m years ago according to wiki so yes Earth, at least dry land, was super dull for 4bn years.
    Amazing to think that only 15 million years later there was a fully developed ecosystem:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynie_chert
    I remember being told when lying in a billabong on a cliff on the Kimberley Coast of Australia that the rocks around there are so old they were formed before the sky was blue
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
    When fiscal drag is included, people earning £25 000 or less will be paying more tax, as will those earning £60 000+.
    Median personal income is... what? About £30 000?
    ~£36k according to the ONS.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    The problems with NI are obvious to anyone involved with taxation policy.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,035
    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    And mugs of tea.

    And tea in polystyrene cups on the roadside. It tastes better than the papery ones.
    Did fish and chips taste better when wrapped in newspaper?

    They probably didn’t. Indeed they probably only used newspaper for the outer wrapping?

    But it was romantic and they DID taste better, dammit
    If you like black pudding, you should give this place a try if you ever go to Seoul.

    'Sundae,' Korean street food reborn as fine dining
    https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/culture/2024/03/135_369841.html#

    The various types of offal puddings are a staple of Korean cuisine.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,019
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    It's also - and I'm sure you know this - why we have massive coal deposits. It is essentially impossible for them to form now because they just get eaten away by bacteria before they have a chance to turn into coal.
    Thanks to Lee Anderson, who claimed coal was renewable, for bringing this to my attention.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,946
    edited March 6
    Leon said:

    sarissa said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    They're not really 'trees' as we know them either, more like gigantic horsetail ferns.

    Then again land plants only appeared 425m years ago according to wiki so yes Earth, at least dry land, was super dull for 4bn years.
    Amazing to think that only 15 million years later there was a fully developed ecosystem:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynie_chert
    I remember being told when lying in a billabong on a cliff on the Kimberley Coast of Australia that the rocks around there are so old they were formed before the sky was blue
    Nitrogen also causes Rayleigh scattering so I wouldn't be 100% sure of that one.

    But there may well have been no oxygen. That's just a nasty toxic waste product of cyanobacteria.
  • Options

    This charming man.


    I'm beginning to think Fox might actually be a bit of a total f***ing arsehole on balance.

    I'd say it's the crippling cocaine habit talking, but I'm sure he's clean as a whistle on that front, and deplore any suggestion to the contrary.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Child Benefit withdrawal changes look like the biggest middle-class tax break.

    Moving it from £50–60k, to £60-80k is a huge difference.

    Nobody thinks about the poor pensioners
    Who are still benefiting from the triple lock.

    And if pensioners don't like Rishi who else have they got to vote for?
    The full state pension is £11,502 pa, 2024/25. Roughly half the minimum wage. It is not unrealistic to ensure that it doesn't lose its already small value. Plenty of pensioners (thankfully I am not one of them) live on not very much.
    But the converse is also true. Many pensioners live on a hell of a lot at a time in life when their outgoings are usually low: no mortgage, no student loans, no commuting costs, kids off their hands etc. By focusing on universal benefits such as the pension we spend our money incredibly inefficiently leaving not enough for those genuinely in need.
    So focus on the ones that do live on a hell of a lot, and leave the rest alone.
    We need to stop giving them money. Personally I would taper the pension for anyone whose personal pensions were worth more than 2x the pension. But then, I am not looking to be elected.
    You are setting up a moral hazard there. Why save for a pension if the government is just going to claw it back. Why not spend the money on avocado toast, lattes and cocaine?
    Your local greasy spoon has a more adventurous menu than mine.
    Yes, I've yet to find avocado toast at a greasy spoon.
    That's kind of self-fulfilling isn't it? Anywhere serving avocado toast is not going to be classed as a greasy spoon, though it may well be a cafe serving full English breakfasts alongside other offerings.

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.
    Also black pudding. Good places still do it, but it’s dying out, rarely get a good peppery one with lumps of fat.

    And mugs of tea.

    And tea in polystyrene cups on the roadside. It tastes better than the papery ones.
    Did fish and chips taste better when wrapped in newspaper?

    They probably didn’t. Indeed they probably only used newspaper for the outer wrapping?

    But it was romantic and they DID taste better, dammit
    If you like black pudding, you should give this place a try if you ever go to Seoul.

    'Sundae,' Korean street food reborn as fine dining
    https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/culture/2024/03/135_369841.html#

    The various types of offal puddings are a staple of Korean cuisine.
    I love Korean food

    There’s a good article in the Guardian today about the triumph of Korean soft power - from music to food to cosmetics, TV, movies, art, it is extraordinary. Plus their incredible industrial prowess, in a nation that was as poor as sub Saharan Africa, and basically smashed to pieces by civil war, all within living memory

    And yet this same remarkable nation is literally dying out coz they won’t have babies. I wonder if there is some link between the two phenomena, indeed I suspect there must be
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    The problems with NI are obvious to anyone involved with taxation policy.
    And yet politicians have avoided doing anything other than raise it for the last 30 years. I've only seen people really talk about how stupid it is to tax work at a higher rate than idleness here before the first NI cut went through last year. Even then there was a lot of people saying it was bad because people would assume it meant NHS cuts.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,365
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
    When fiscal drag is included, people earning £25 000 or less will be paying more tax, as will those earning £60 000+.
    Median personal income is... what? About £30 000?
    ~£36k according to the ONS.
    Ooh, I should beat it!

    I'm up to £35,943.90 with three weeks to go

    But that was probably last year, before wage inflation for everyone else
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,035
    Scott_xP said:

    biggles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So, how do we define 'greasy spoon'?

    While we're on the subject of breakfasts can I post a lament for the now near-extinct fried-bread? Once an essential constituent of the full English, now lamentably replaced by that godawful American import hash browns (aka mass produced potato chipboard).

    There, that feels better.

    Giles Coren, The Times restaurant critic, recently reviewed a greasy spoon in London. He was very impressed with the baked beans which the owner informed him we "catering" beans, not available for domestic consumption...

    My old (subsidised) staff canteen used to do a fried breakfast. The eggs were done and placed on top of a piece of fried bread. You could take the egg with or without the slice. Epic.
    I think the best beans on the high street are now branston. Heinz took out too much salt and failed to compensate.
    Can't believe how sweet Heinz taste
    Try cooking them with a dash of balsamic vinegar ?
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,365
    edited March 6

    This charming man.


    I'm beginning to think Fox might actually be a bit of a total f***ing arsehole on balance.

    I'd say it's the crippling cocaine habit talking, but I'm sure he's clean as a whistle on that front, and deplore any suggestion to the contrary.
    That posh twunt, Fox Hunt?

    I saw the picture of Hunt and thought you'd called him Fox, then zoomed in on the tweet

    Does Fox have a sister called Amelia?

    I think I met her very briefly about twenty years ago when the magazine I worked for did an interview with her
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
    The national living wage is one I remember. I remember banging on about pushing up the minimum wage and using it as a tool for poverty reduction and slowly eliminating wage subsidies like tax credits. Around a year or so after I started banging on about it here a few Tory think tanks also started banging on about the idea too and in the 2015 post election budget Osborne introduced tha national living wage for everyone aged of 24 or over and now everyone aged 21 or over qualifies and will earn £11.44 or ~£24k per year for a full time worker, taking a double income household with two people working full time well above the poverty line and far above the thresholds for tax credits.
    A pedant posts: it's £10.42 per hour atm, £11.44 from April.

    A single parent, two children, social housing rent say £750pm working 40 hours at minimum wage will still get (and require imo) UC - of over £1000pm. The rise in the minimum wage to £11.44 reduces that by about £70pm.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,035
    Eabhal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    What is also amazing is that the bacteria that break down trees were a couple hundred millions after trees evolved. So for a while there were just loads and loads of trees piling up that had fallen over and didn't rot.
    I seem to remember that this took so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it caused a massive ice age which almost killed all life on earth. Interesting that it was probably the bacteria that put the brakes on this.
    It's also - and I'm sure you know this - why we have massive coal deposits. It is essentially impossible for them to form now because they just get eaten away by bacteria before they have a chance to turn into coal.
    Thanks to Lee Anderson, who claimed coal was renewable, for bringing this to my attention.
    TBF, it probably is, eventually, if we first wipe out all life on earth.
    Though that would have to include the deep rock bacteria. So you’d need a planet busting collision.

    And it would then be a race to see if the sun went supernova first.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,365

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
    The national living wage is one I remember. I remember banging on about pushing up the minimum wage and using it as a tool for poverty reduction and slowly eliminating wage subsidies like tax credits. Around a year or so after I started banging on about it here a few Tory think tanks also started banging on about the idea too and in the 2015 post election budget Osborne introduced tha national living wage for everyone aged of 24 or over and now everyone aged 21 or over qualifies and will earn £11.44 or ~£24k per year for a full time worker, taking a double income household with two people working full time well above the poverty line and far above the thresholds for tax credits.
    A pedant posts: it's £10.42 per hour atm, £11.44 from April.

    A single parent, two children, social housing rent say £750pm working 40 hours at minimum wage will still get (and require imo) UC - of over £1000pm. The rise in the minimum wage to £11.44 reduces that by about £70pm.
    Working forty hours each and every single month of the whole year?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,481
    biggles said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    Given the direction of policy in the last decade, is this an argument to close the site down?
    Genuine 😂
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    I’ve slightly fallen for a beautiful Swiss singer who is part of the ayahuasquero squad here in Dorado, Colombia

    I keep trying not to look at her. it’s really hard. Whenever she walks past - no, glides past - I have to stare hard at my screen and pretend to be typing something massively important whereas in fact I;m just wittering on here about fish and chip wrappers

    Hopefully she doesn’t read PB. If she does, fuck it, Danit, I am in love with you, you petite Swiss beauty with the long swaying hair, please come and live with me in a beach hut on a Cambodian island

    There. I feel better now. Unburdened of my pathetic yearning. Thanks
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,041
    edited March 6

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ed Conways chart is the most significant. As I predicted yesterday another “tax cutting “ budget miraculously increases the tax burden.

    The State still thinks it needs to spend more of our money and that it can do so better than we can. Everything else is fluff.

    The Tories will be going round claiming to have cut people's taxes. As people see their taxes go to the highest they have ever been .

    Don't the Tories get it? People aren't as stupid as they think. You can't say to voters struggling for money that they've never had it so good. That they can't let labour come in and ruin the good times.

    What good times?
    Well Labour help them by claiming that these are unaffordable tax cuts when the tax burden continues to rise. It’s a neat trick if you can get away with it as Chancellor. Much better than Browns approach of reannouncing the same money again and again. Hunt largely got away with it the last time. I have doubts that it will work again.
    But it seems the tax burden now is being genuinely cut on those of middle incomes who are working for a living, while it rises for those who aren't working for a living or have exceptional incomes.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.
    What about those on lower incomes who are working for a living?
    Still plenty in the hard to recruit sectors, employed directly or indirectly, by the government, who are worse off.
    (Having said that, the direction of travel is welcomed). Not sure why it's taken 14 years, mind.
  • Options
    Ratters said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    Shall we have another stab at abolishing the triple-lock?

    Also, tidal power anyone?
    How about replacing it was an 'inflation lock' with a 0% floor? Politically more viable than real-term pension cuts.
    I wonder if received wisdom slightly overestimates how hard it is to remove the triple lock. You wait for a year when, say, wage growth gives a good rise in the pension. Then you say, "Oh, by the way, we're sticking with that one going forward".

    You get some bad headlines, certainly. But, that year, the rise is pretty good. The political agenda moves on quite fast, and by the next election it's old news.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    edited March 6
    sarissa said:

    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:
    If this were a pub quiz, I’d have guessed far earlier than 400m years for the first trees. Earth was super-dull for the first 4Bn years then.
    They're not really 'trees' as we know them either, more like gigantic horsetail ferns.

    Then again land plants only appeared 425m years ago according to wiki so yes Earth, at least dry land, was super dull for 4bn years.
    Amazing to think that only 15 million years later there was a fully developed ecosystem:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynie_chert
    'Only 15 million years' is quite a long time all things considered.

    Possibly even long enough for the Tories to the economy growing again.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,688
    edited March 6

    This charming man.


    I'm beginning to think Fox might actually be a bit of a total f***ing arsehole on balance.

    I'd say it's the crippling cocaine habit talking, but I'm sure he's clean as a whistle on that front, and deplore any suggestion to the contrary.
    That posh twunt, Fox Hunt?

    I saw the picture of Hunt and thought you'd called him Fox, then zoomed in on the tweet

    Does Fox have a sister called Amelia?

    I think I met her very briefly about twenty years ago when the magazine I worked for did an interview with her
    Yes, cuz, Emilia
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
    The national living wage is one I remember. I remember banging on about pushing up the minimum wage and using it as a tool for poverty reduction and slowly eliminating wage subsidies like tax credits. Around a year or so after I started banging on about it here a few Tory think tanks also started banging on about the idea too and in the 2015 post election budget Osborne introduced tha national living wage for everyone aged of 24 or over and now everyone aged 21 or over qualifies and will earn £11.44 or ~£24k per year for a full time worker, taking a double income household with two people working full time well above the poverty line and far above the thresholds for tax credits.
    A pedant posts: it's £10.42 per hour atm, £11.44 from April.

    A single parent, two children, social housing rent say £750pm working 40 hours at minimum wage will still get (and require imo) UC - of over £1000pm. The rise in the minimum wage to £11.44 reduces that by about £70pm.
    I mean I did say double income household and I also think that single parent households should have to rely on the absent parent for support rather than the state. In those cases where it isn't possible then the state should step in, parents should be responsible for their kids even where they choose not to be around for them.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,330

    This charming man.


    I'm beginning to think Fox might actually be a bit of a total f***ing arsehole on balance.

    I'd say it's the crippling cocaine habit talking, but I'm sure he's clean as a whistle on that front, and deplore any suggestion to the contrary.
    I was open to the idea that Fox was trying to make a career as a kind of thinking-man's anti-Woke iconoclast, with his arty background providing specialist insider status. But that outburst was just troglodytic bigotry. Perhaps he doesn't have the brain power to pull it off.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,057
    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus Christ stop being so ridiculously unpleasant to @Colin

    By all means argue his points or examine his failings but trying to chase him off the site for “posting too many comments on his first day” is FUCKING RIDICULOUS

    Let’s face it this site is now down to an unappetising bunch of tedious Woke lawyers, accountants and retired IT nerds, and me and @BlancheLivermore

    We need fresh blood. Desperately. Don’t chase it away

    As @Colin asked for a photo I for one will be friendly and do as he requests

    I’ve just been for a dip in our local waterfall (under my hotel room). Omg it is Edenic. The butterflies dance over your head and the fish come up to say hello. Absolute bliss


    What the hell is that abomination of a beer?

    The word “light” should never appear on beer.
    I would hate to start an argument, but regardless of the merits of the word 'light' on beer, there is, I assert one interesting fact about beer. Which is that non-alcoholic beer actually tastes of beer, whereas non-alcoholic wine tastes of nothing interesting at all, and certainly has no relation to wine. Do others think the same?
    It wasn’t always so but it is now. I had Heineken Zero with my curry tonight. Was it as great as Kingfisher? No, but it was fine.

    I wonder if wines have just had less investment at the alcohol free end.
    Black Isle Brewery's zero alcohol beer is also fine. I much prefer it, or water, at lunchtime to conventional soft drinks.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
    The national living wage is one I remember. I remember banging on about pushing up the minimum wage and using it as a tool for poverty reduction and slowly eliminating wage subsidies like tax credits. Around a year or so after I started banging on about it here a few Tory think tanks also started banging on about the idea too and in the 2015 post election budget Osborne introduced tha national living wage for everyone aged of 24 or over and now everyone aged 21 or over qualifies and will earn £11.44 or ~£24k per year for a full time worker, taking a double income household with two people working full time well above the poverty line and far above the thresholds for tax credits.
    A pedant posts: it's £10.42 per hour atm, £11.44 from April.

    A single parent, two children, social housing rent say £750pm working 40 hours at minimum wage will still get (and require imo) UC - of over £1000pm. The rise in the minimum wage to £11.44 reduces that by about £70pm.
    I mean I did say double income household and I also think that single parent households should have to rely on the absent parent for support rather than the state. In those cases where it isn't possible then the state should step in, parents should be responsible for their kids even where they choose not to be around for them.
    You did indeed, yes. And I agree - I am not sure why child maintenance is excluded as income for UC purposes - seems to encourage family breakdown. As does the couple rate for UC being less than 2x the single rate.

    Increasing the minimum wage has been a rare plus from this Tory government. Further increases would be a way to reduce the cost of UC going forward.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,035
    Also on record as a Holocaust denier.

    Newly unearthed video of N.C. GOP gubernatorial nominee Mark Robinson in 2020: "I absolutely want to go back to the America where women couldn’t vote."
    https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1765494719772033443
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803
    MaxPB said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    The problems with NI are obvious to anyone involved with taxation policy.
    And yet politicians have avoided doing anything other than raise it for the last 30 years. I've only seen people really talk about how stupid it is to tax work at a higher rate than idleness here before the first NI cut went through last year. Even then there was a lot of people saying it was bad because people would assume it meant NHS cuts.
    I think the shift to cutting NI is just preparing for an election. There is some calculation that has been made about trying to attract working age voters over rewards and handouts for the pensioner base.

    At the most I think we are just drawing their attention to what they already know.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,131

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Boris Johnson succeeded in putting the Tories out of power for a generation it looks like.

    I think in years to come people will re-assess 2019 as the election that Jeremy Corbyn lost and Johnson got lucky.

    People will see Starmer as the heir to Johnson, continuing his Red, White and Blue Brexit policies.
    It's a constant source of wonder to me how so many people on here feel able to write the history of Keir Starmer's premiership before a single day of it has yet transpired. PBers are truly an impressive bunch.
    Obviously that's not a great idea, and but I suspect the predominant view of the future history of Starmer is similar to the view these futurist historians would take of any possible next PM of the UK.

    Which is that whoever wins next time operates in circumstances and constraints by which it is impossible to do well, and difficult to do OK.

    And the big bit of evidence for this is that in the realm of political commentary there are no big ideas that are both plausible and possible with respect to the politics, the economics or, in most cases, both. The UK's situation is that whatever your future vision you would not start from here.
    My three point proposal to transform Britain's prospects:

    1) Recreate Canary Wharf in Milton Keynes - set aside a couple of grid squares for high-rise skyscrapers as part of a plan to allow the population to grow up to a million
    2) Accelerate the East-West rail project to link it to Oxford and Cambridge
    3) Profit
    That's...actually quite a good idea. I shall steal it and pretend I thought of it. 😃
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,035
    Thank you Speaker Johnson.

    “It was the lack of ammunition,” said Shaman, whose battalion was deployed to Avdiivka in October when the Russians began a new offensive against the city. “No question.”
    https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1765379008760312226
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Has to be said it's good to see that PB was well ahead of the curve on NI and Hunt has pointed out the obvious about how destructive it is to penalise work with extra taxes (or reward idleness with fewer, depending on one's outlook).

    I think we've been talking about NI being a tax on working people for at least 4 or 5 years. Using fiscal drag on income tax to eliminate NI in a revenue neutral way is a probably going to be Rishi and Hunt's lasting legacy. The thresholds will be quite low compared to incomes but at least tax rates will be transparent and equal for every kind of income.

    There's a part of me earlier today that wondered whether our conversations have helped move the Overton Window towards recognising the harm in NI?

    As you say we were ahead of the curve and have been talking about it for years, and I believe many politicians (and advisors etc) lurk here.

    Curious if it's a coincidence or if the conversations here have helped shape the agenda? Either way, it's a bloody good thing it's being addressed and I hope that Starmer recognises it too and continues the good work.
    There have been a few moments like that over the last decade where specific ideas from here seem to end up turning into policy. Once or twice lifted word for word.
    We were ahead of the curve in recognising the housing shortage being a major problem.

    Now even NIMBY politicians are prefacing their arguments with "of course we need more homes but (insert BS argument like it should be on brownfield instead)"

    Of course, as always, ignore everything before the but.
    The national living wage is one I remember. I remember banging on about pushing up the minimum wage and using it as a tool for poverty reduction and slowly eliminating wage subsidies like tax credits. Around a year or so after I started banging on about it here a few Tory think tanks also started banging on about the idea too and in the 2015 post election budget Osborne introduced tha national living wage for everyone aged of 24 or over and now everyone aged 21 or over qualifies and will earn £11.44 or ~£24k per year for a full time worker, taking a double income household with two people working full time well above the poverty line and far above the thresholds for tax credits.
    A pedant posts: it's £10.42 per hour atm, £11.44 from April.

    A single parent, two children, social housing rent say £750pm working 40 hours at minimum wage will still get (and require imo) UC - of over £1000pm. The rise in the minimum wage to £11.44 reduces that by about £70pm.
    Working forty hours each and every single month of the whole year?
    Hah nice one. No, my figures are based on 40 hours per week at minimum wage, I should have made that clear.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,803
    With the 'anonymous likes', you could set up spoof accounts that like every post that you write, making you appear really popular. No one would ever know the truth.
This discussion has been closed.