Lol they've run out of proper food for the athletes at the Olympic village after organisers promised a sustainable plant based menu. Athletes complaining there's not enough grilled meat not enough eggs and the plant based options are shite. Team GB has brought in an extra chef to their base camp and the athletes are travelling there every evening for dinner.
Imagine providing a predominantly plant based menu at an elite sporting event. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea.
The idiots who watched that dodgy documentary about being able to be an elite athlete as a vegan.
John Salley won 4 x NBA Championships on a 100% vegan diet so it's possible. #veganpower
It's probably not possible if you adopt that diet the week before the Olympics.
I'm sure it's possible but if most athletes weren't doing it organisers probably shouldn't have prepared on the assumption they were.
The story even in the DT comes over as a caterers' screwup, a shortage of certain favourite meats rather than a blanket vegan diktat.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
The purpose of salary sacrifice is to reduce income tax. This is by design as governments want to encourage certain behaviours like saving for your pension. Rachel Reeves could choose to limit the rate of that reduction, eg only allowing sacrifice at basic rate income tax
I know what it does. I just think most people still qualifying for benefits live hand to mouth and can't afford the savings. I do fear attacks on pension contributions, either by limiting the relief to the basic rate or severely limiting the tax free lump sum or both. Both of those will hit the better off hardest and raise serious cash. Taxes need to go up to sustain present levels of spending let alone any new spending Labour supporters want.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes).
There are constantly calls for more spending for public services, but my experience of them is that they don't need money spending - they need the organisations fixing.
Classic example - I needed an MRI scan. So I'm booked in for one at a Manchester hospital. Before the scan, I'm sent a checklist basically about "have I got bits of metal in me anywhere?" One question - have I ever had any metal splinters removed from an eye. I have, so I ring the number on the checklist as instructed. I speak to someone helpful "that's fine, please come 30 mins earlier than the appointment, we'll Xray and check there is no metal in your eyes first".
So I duly rock up, and after an hour of waiting about it transpires that the message that I needed an Xray didn't get passed on and they can't actually do one. So the expensive MRI slot gets wasted (as well as most of a day of my time) because someone didn't pass a message on.
A week later, a receptionist from the same hospital rings up - they've got a new booking for me, with the Xray included. They say something unclear about it being at MRI, which I take as the MRI department.
Turn up fairly early for this appointment, receptionist can't find me on the list. It eventually transpires that I'm booked at Manchester Royal Infirmary, not where I am, and that's what the receptionist who rang me was referring to when she said MRI. Only that's 30 mins away and my appointment is in 10 mins. I made it there, explained, got rushed through the Xray and had the MRI scan, but it was very nearly a second expensive missed appointment.
I'm fairly sure this sort of thing goes on all the time in the NHS. More money won't fix it - it's a culture problem, not a cash problem. But the only solution politicians know is more cash, so they keep shoveling in more, and wondering why it doesn't seem to be yielding results.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
The purpose of salary sacrifice is to reduce income tax. This is by design as governments want to encourage certain behaviours like saving for your pension. Rachel Reeves could choose to limit the rate of that reduction, eg only allowing sacrifice at basic rate income tax
I know what it does. I just think most people still qualifying for benefits live hand to mouth and can't afford the savings. I do fear attacks on pension contributions, either by limiting the relief to the basic rate or severely limiting the tax free lump sum or both. Both of those will hit the better off hardest and raise serious cash. Taxes need to go up to sustain present levels of spending let alone any new spending Labour supporters want.
I think FF43 is referring to eg the Child Benefit threshold which is higher up the pay scale.
Lower down the pay scale, simply not doing extra work, only working 16 hours a week for instance, is how people react to the cliff edge.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
But that is not salary sacrifice AIUI. Salary sacrifice is where you say to your employer, don't pay me more, put it in my pension instead.
I agree that there are disincentives to work through our system that need worked on but that is a different thing.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
If this is the Russians, they're improving after the balls up at Salisbury.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
We are already at war with Russia. True, it's another cold war, but it is a war nonetheless. Itis just that many in the west seem to be in denial about that. Russia is fomenting trouble in its self-declared 'enemies' in many ways, including migration, sabotage, espionage and cyber. They are often using locally-based criminals in other countries for their work.
The problem is that it is a fine line for them to tread, and it is perfectly possible that they go too far and cause a response from the west.
And then the usual suspects will screech 'escalation!!!!' about our actions...
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
But that is not salary sacrifice AIUI. Salary sacrifice is where you say to your employer, don't pay me more, put it in my pension instead.
I agree that there are disincentives to work through our system that need worked on but that is a different thing.
Yes, which people do to avoid reaching the child benefit cliff edge, or the personal allowance cliff edge.
Whether it be UC, child benefit, personal allowance or any other cliff edge, people respond to the cliff edges by changing their behaviour.
The solution isn't to punish people, its to remove the cliff edges.
"BESPOKE: “.. In inflation-adjusted terms, the current pace of [US] factory investment dwarfs any prior period. Dating back to 1929, there's never been a period of factory construction activity even close to what we're seeing today.”"
How much factory per $ even inflation adjusted do you get now compared with 1929 given all the rules, regulations, h&s, assurance etc now required?
I'd imagine it's all of the regulations that are driving output. The higher the regulatory burden the more money is invested into mechanisation and automation which results in huge productivity gains.
Dosen't work that way here alas. For example. Look at the replacement of automated car washes with exploited Romanians.
The car washes have historically been staffed by Albanians who came on tourist visas and never left.
Is our France profonde roving reporter still on the scene?
It's not the whole of France by any stretch. It seems targeted on particular high speed rail lines running to the north and east of Paris. Most of SNCF is unaffected so far.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
If this is the Russians, they're improving after the balls up at Salisbury.
Salisbury (and other events) involved using Russian agents - often the same 'tourists'.
What Russia appears to be doing now, in part, is using locally-based criminals. Making contact with a locally criminal gang in (say) Germany, and saying: "I think I might leave this bag of money here. It's a shame that weapons plant over there is still operating, isn't it..."
Lol they've run out of proper food for the athletes at the Olympic village after organisers promised a sustainable plant based menu. Athletes complaining there's not enough grilled meat not enough eggs and the plant based options are shite. Team GB has brought in an extra chef to their base camp and the athletes are travelling there every evening for dinner.
Imagine providing a predominantly plant based menu at an elite sporting event. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea.
The idiots who watched that dodgy documentary about being able to be an elite athlete as a vegan.
John Salley won 4 x NBA Championships on a 100% vegan diet so it's possible. #veganpower
It's probably not possible if you adopt that diet the week before the Olympics.
I'm sure it's possible but if most athletes weren't doing it organisers probably shouldn't have prepared on the assumption they were.
Having rowed with some very high end people, the idea of trying to impose a new diet on them, a week before the big event....
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
Until the kids turn 18 and the spigots turn off trapping them in poverty without the work experience to get a full time job.
Then they will develop a bad back or a mental health condition.
Another consequence is that employers prefer to hire five UC recipients working 16 hours than twp full time workers as the latter will entail employer NI payments and the former wont. Plus the full time workers wont be happy with minimum wage (unlike the UC recipients who don't care as most of their income is from UC and a pay rise gets knocked off the UC payments)
Brown invented a horrible poverty trap that also subsidises employers.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes).
There are constantly calls for more spending for public services, but my experience of them is that they don't need money spending - they need the organisations fixing.
Classic example - I needed an MRI scan. So I'm booked in for one at a Manchester hospital. Before the scan, I'm sent a checklist basically about "have I got bits of metal in me anywhere?" One question - have I ever had any metal splinters removed from an eye. I have, so I ring the number on the checklist as instructed. I speak to someone helpful "that's fine, please come 30 mins earlier than the appointment, we'll Xray and check there is no metal in your eyes first".
So I duly rock up, and after an hour of waiting about it transpires that the message that I needed an Xray didn't get passed on and they can't actually do one. So the expensive MRI slot gets wasted (as well as most of a day of my time) because someone didn't pass a message on.
A week later, a receptionist from the same hospital rings up - they've got a new booking for me, with the Xray included. They say something unclear about it being at MRI, which I take as the MRI department.
Turn up fairly early for this appointment, receptionist can't find me on the list. It eventually transpires that I'm booked at Manchester Royal Infirmary, not where I am, and that's what the receptionist who rang me was referring to when she said MRI. Only that's 30 mins away and my appointment is in 10 mins. I made it there, explained, got rushed through the Xray and had the MRI scan, but it was very nearly a second expensive missed appointment.
I'm fairly sure this sort of thing goes on all the time in the NHS. More money won't fix it - it's a culture problem, not a cash problem. But the only solution politicians know is more cash, so they keep shoveling in more, and wondering why it doesn't seem to be yielding results.
From my experience (rather too much in the last two years - at one point I had nearly 10 appointments in 3 weeks; taxi firms loved it), that second appointment would have been confirmed by letter and / or text message, which would have flagged up the issue when I checked pre-travelling there. The use of text messages is not totally consistent across all departments.
Where I've had possible confusion it's been between diabetes checks at the GP and diabetes checks at the hospital department, and someone not recognising larger context.
I'd say that's around leadership at the MRI setting a uniform culture. I hope you've been able to find a way to explain the problem.
I pointed out a couple of not dissimilar issues in the comments this weeks. Most blatantly the City Corporation giving a Freedom of the City to a wheelchair user for disabled campaigning, then not installing the wheelchair ramp to the platform because one of their staff decided "she would not want it".
(I did not realise that Freedom of the City was something you can apply for, and becomes a career development item.)
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
We are already at war with Russia. True, it's another cold war, but it is a war nonetheless. Itis just that many in the west seem to be in denial about that. Russia is fomenting trouble in its self-declared 'enemies' in many ways, including migration, sabotage, espionage and cyber. They are often using locally-based criminals in other countries for their work.
The problem is that it is a fine line for them to tread, and it is perfectly possible that they go too far and cause a response from the west.
And then the usual suspects will screech 'escalation!!!!' about our actions...
It was all our fault for provoking Russia by being a more attractive partner.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
But that is not salary sacrifice AIUI. Salary sacrifice is where you say to your employer, don't pay me more, put it in my pension instead.
I agree that there are disincentives to work through our system that need worked on but that is a different thing.
Yes, which people do to avoid reaching the child benefit cliff edge, or the personal allowance cliff edge.
Whether it be UC, child benefit, personal allowance or any other cliff edge, people respond to the cliff edges by changing their behaviour.
The solution isn't to punish people, its to remove the cliff edges.
I think we all agree with you, but don't underestimate the difficulty of doing so. Especially with devolved benefits and taxes on top.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
But that is not salary sacrifice AIUI. Salary sacrifice is where you say to your employer, don't pay me more, put it in my pension instead.
I agree that there are disincentives to work through our system that need worked on but that is a different thing.
Yes, which people do to avoid reaching the child benefit cliff edge, or the personal allowance cliff edge.
Whether it be UC, child benefit, personal allowance or any other cliff edge, people respond to the cliff edges by changing their behaviour.
The solution isn't to punish people, its to remove the cliff edges.
I think we all agree with you, but don't underestimate the difficulty of doing so. Especially with devolved benefits and taxes on top.
Any government worth its salt needs to tackle difficult problems.
If they can't be bothered to do so, they don't deserve to be in office.
The last government failed to do so. This new one has an opportunity, if they put it in the "too difficult" pile too, then they deserve to (and will) ultimately fail too.
I was genuinely astonished to find that Harris is 59. Looks incredible.
If the Democrats bring lots of energy and aggression to the campaign you could see things fall apart for Trump. They have inverted the age/senility debate and their adverts are super punchy - challenging Trump to debate etc
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
The purpose of salary sacrifice is to reduce income tax. This is by design as governments want to encourage certain behaviours like saving for your pension. Rachel Reeves could choose to limit the rate of that reduction, eg only allowing sacrifice at basic rate income tax
I know what it does. I just think most people still qualifying for benefits live hand to mouth and can't afford the savings. I do fear attacks on pension contributions, either by limiting the relief to the basic rate or severely limiting the tax free lump sum or both. Both of those will hit the better off hardest and raise serious cash. Taxes need to go up to sustain present levels of spending let alone any new spending Labour supporters want.
Yes. Salary sacrifice is of interest to people who have discretionary income, ie relatively well paid, who are more concerned to save tax on it than spend it.
I think there may a confusion in this conversation between moving income out of tax through salary sacrifice and forgoing income through reduced hours worked to avoid cliff edges. The second can apply to people on very low incomes getting income support.
Lol they've run out of proper food for the athletes at the Olympic village after organisers promised a sustainable plant based menu. Athletes complaining there's not enough grilled meat not enough eggs and the plant based options are shite. Team GB has brought in an extra chef to their base camp and the athletes are travelling there every evening for dinner.
Imagine providing a predominantly plant based menu at an elite sporting event. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea.
The idiots who watched that dodgy documentary about being able to be an elite athlete as a vegan.
John Salley won 4 x NBA Championships on a 100% vegan diet so it's possible. #veganpower
It's probably not possible if you adopt that diet the week before the Olympics.
I'm sure it's possible but if most athletes weren't doing it organisers probably shouldn't have prepared on the assumption they were.
The story even in the DT comes over as a caterers' screwup, a shortage of certain favourite meats rather than a blanket vegan diktat.
Still, any excuse on PB to hate the vegans.
I don't think there are vegan haters on PB, but there are a few who think you eat what you want, and I'll do the same. so please don't book only vegan food for events (for instance).
Salisbury (and other events) involved using Russian agents - often the same 'tourists'.
What Russia appears to be doing now, in part, is using locally-based criminals. Making contact with a locally criminal gang in (say) Germany, and saying: "I think I might leave this bag of money here. It's a shame that weapons plant over there is still operating, isn't it..."
There have been loads of suspicious attacks where defence and Ukraine linked businesses have been targetted across Europe, in the manner you describe. But you can be certain that the Russian intelligence agencies are also sponsoring and egging-on protest groups to carry out attacks as well.
Lol they've run out of proper food for the athletes at the Olympic village after organisers promised a sustainable plant based menu. Athletes complaining there's not enough grilled meat not enough eggs and the plant based options are shite. Team GB has brought in an extra chef to their base camp and the athletes are travelling there every evening for dinner.
Imagine providing a predominantly plant based menu at an elite sporting event. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea.
The idiots who watched that dodgy documentary about being able to be an elite athlete as a vegan.
John Salley won 4 x NBA Championships on a 100% vegan diet so it's possible. #veganpower
It's probably not possible if you adopt that diet the week before the Olympics.
Erhh, he is now, but...
"During the early 1990s, while still playing, he admitted that he was a "lying" vegetarian since he occasionally ate shrimp and fish. He took fish oil and was macrobiotic and played the large part of his NBA career as a vegetarian, albeit loosely."
I am sure it works for some to be full vegan, but the documentary that convinced a load of athletes to try was full of BS and most rapidly returned to not being vegan.
I have a friend who claims to be vegan, but also eats sushi.
I've never really understood it, but hey people be people.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
It's not an attitude. For quite a few people, it is a reality.
I've had people sat in front of me, tearful at the possibility they "went over" on hours and that they'd get sanctioned. Fuck that shit.
If I had the power, I'd give people going from 16 hours a week to 40 hours a temporary *increase* in benefits. As a "well done".
And for long term unemployed who get back into work - start with a parade in their honour. Then extra money.
If you tax people past 50%, they will do lots of things to avoid the extra tax. This is known. So, when we tax people at 70%+, we are saying "don't do this".
Salisbury (and other events) involved using Russian agents - often the same 'tourists'.
What Russia appears to be doing now, in part, is using locally-based criminals. Making contact with a locally criminal gang in (say) Germany, and saying: "I think I might leave this bag of money here. It's a shame that weapons plant over there is still operating, isn't it..."
There have been loads of suspicious attacks where defence and Ukraine linked businesses have been targetted across Europe, in the manner you describe. But you can be certain that the Russian intelligence agencies are also sponsoring and egging-on protest groups to carry out attacks as well.
Green movements across Europe have been funded and encouraged to oppose fracking by Russia for decades.
Edit to add: I'm particularly bitter about this one because I lost a lot of money backing a company that had some incredible Polish gas shale acreage. And then fracking got banned, and the company became worthless.
Is our France profonde roving reporter still on the scene?
If its under attack he will be hiding somewhere as safe as he can find. We missed his top level reportage of Covid struck London after his craven fleeing to Wales.
"BESPOKE: “.. In inflation-adjusted terms, the current pace of [US] factory investment dwarfs any prior period. Dating back to 1929, there's never been a period of factory construction activity even close to what we're seeing today.”"
How much factory per $ even inflation adjusted do you get now compared with 1929 given all the rules, regulations, h&s, assurance etc now required?
I'd imagine it's all of the regulations that are driving output. The higher the regulatory burden the more money is invested into mechanisation and automation which results in huge productivity gains.
If regulation rather than technical change and private sector animal spirits drove automation, North Korea or Cuba would be world leaders in robotics. Most jobs can't be automated - most empirical estimates of factor substitutability across the economy are about 0.1-0.2.
And, in fact, excessive and often unpredictable regulation, by discouraging investment, will do as much to retard automation overall as to encourage it.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
We are already at war with Russia. True, it's another cold war, but it is a war nonetheless. Itis just that many in the west seem to be in denial about that. Russia is fomenting trouble in its self-declared 'enemies' in many ways, including migration, sabotage, espionage and cyber. They are often using locally-based criminals in other countries for their work.
The problem is that it is a fine line for them to tread, and it is perfectly possible that they go too far and cause a response from the west.
And then the usual suspects will screech 'escalation!!!!' about our actions...
It was all our fault for provoking Russia by being a more attractive partner.
"The punishment beating you're giving me is the reason I didn't want to be friends with you in the first place..."
Is Harrris stronger or weaker than Biden in 2020? Weaker It Trump in 2024 stronger or weaker than Trump in 2020? A bit Stronger, because opposition is his thing.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Don't forget the carers' allowance. Go over the small allowed working salary by £1, lose the entire allowanc.e
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
It's not an attitude. For quite a few people, it is a reality.
I've had people sat in front of me, tearful at the possibility they "went over" on hours and that they'd get sanctioned. Fuck that shit.
If I had the power, I'd give people going from 16 hours a week to 40 hours a temporary *increase* in benefits. As a "well done".
And for long term unemployed who get back into work - start with a parade in their honour. Then extra money.
If you tax people past 50%, they will do lots of things to avoid the extra tax. This is known. So, when we tax people at 70%+, we are saying "don't do this".
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Section 106 doesn't seem to work.
How about - laying out new suburbs/towns. Put the 'leccy, sewers, schools, hospitals, roads and rail in *first*. Then sell the plots for houses to builders, one road at a time.
That's how the Victorians and Edwardians did it in a number of cases.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
The purpose of salary sacrifice is to reduce income tax. This is by design as governments want to encourage certain behaviours like saving for your pension. Rachel Reeves could choose to limit the rate of that reduction, eg only allowing sacrifice at basic rate income tax
I know what it does. I just think most people still qualifying for benefits live hand to mouth and can't afford the savings. I do fear attacks on pension contributions, either by limiting the relief to the basic rate or severely limiting the tax free lump sum or both. Both of those will hit the better off hardest and raise serious cash. Taxes need to go up to sustain present levels of spending let alone any new spending Labour supporters want.
Labour always wreck people's pensions. careful to feather their own nests but happy to steal the plebs money.
Off topic. Has the 1922 made a mess of the Conservative party leadership election? with more and more MPs putting their names forward It is quite possible that only one or two candidates will reach the threshold of 10 backers. One would be a disaster but less than 4 would mean that stretching the campaign to November would be silly and make the conference irrelevant. Members would not be impressed if they didn't have an effective say in the choice.
Harris will do better than Biden with blacks, Latinos and women and less well with older white men. How that breaks down State wise is very hard to predict but I would expect Arizona and New Mexico to become far more competitive.
Women is the big one. I still think this will be the abortion election and the anger against the SC overturning Roe will be much better marshalled by Kamala than Biden could have managed. She needs a big lead amongst women to offset other areas of weakness.
I think New Mexico is now well out of the Republicans reach, but that the Democrats are toast in Arizona. (Although I expect them to hold the Senate seat because Lake will underperform Trump by 4-5 points.)
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
It's not an attitude. For quite a few people, it is a reality.
I've had people sat in front of me, tearful at the possibility they "went over" on hours and that they'd get sanctioned. Fuck that shit.
If I had the power, I'd give people going from 16 hours a week to 40 hours a temporary *increase* in benefits. As a "well done".
And for long term unemployed who get back into work - start with a parade in their honour. Then extra money.
If you tax people past 50%, they will do lots of things to avoid the extra tax. This is known. So, when we tax people at 70%+, we are saying "don't do this".
Take 50% of the lazy buggers who will neither work nor want, there would be a stampede
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Not true. Commentators were talking about a 30bn war chest b4 the election....
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Section 106 doesn't seem to work.
How about - laying out new suburbs/towns. Put the 'leccy, sewers, schools, hospitals, roads and rail in *first*. Then sell the plots for houses to builders, one road at a time.
That's how the Victorians and Edwardians did it in a number of cases.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Section 106 doesn't seem to work.
How about - laying out new suburbs/towns. Put the 'leccy, sewers, schools, hospitals, roads and rail in *first*. Then sell the plots for houses to builders, one road at a time.
That's how the Victorians and Edwardians did it in a number of cases.
No, that'd just be an excuse not to do anything as the NIMBYs and politicians who don't want to spend will just not bother doing anything and the problems will mount.
How about just let people build homes wherever the f**k they want (apart from very limited areas zoned for no construction such as AONB) and then if new public infrastructure is needed, then that is paid for.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
There are £50k and £100k cut-offs for various child benefits.
Is our France profonde roving reporter still on the scene?
It's not the whole of France by any stretch. It seems targeted on particular high speed rail lines running to the north and east of Paris. Most of SNCF is unaffected so far.
All mainlines in and out of Paris were cut at the same time, except for the South East line to Lyon and Marseille where the attack was foiled. It requires a high degree of organisation. It seems like an act of war.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Section 106 doesn't seem to work.
How about - laying out new suburbs/towns. Put the 'leccy, sewers, schools, hospitals, roads and rail in *first*. Then sell the plots for houses to builders, one road at a time.
That's how the Victorians and Edwardians did it in a number of cases.
"BESPOKE: “.. In inflation-adjusted terms, the current pace of [US] factory investment dwarfs any prior period. Dating back to 1929, there's never been a period of factory construction activity even close to what we're seeing today.”"
How much factory per $ even inflation adjusted do you get now compared with 1929 given all the rules, regulations, h&s, assurance etc now required?
I'd imagine it's all of the regulations that are driving output. The higher the regulatory burden the more money is invested into mechanisation and automation which results in huge productivity gains.
Dosen't work that way here alas. For example. Look at the replacement of automated car washes with exploited Romanians.
The car washes have historically been staffed by Albanians who came on tourist visas and never left.
Same with the Turkish barbers, certainly round here.
It is starting to look like picking Vance was the biggest unforced running mate error since McCain thought Sarah Palin was a good idea.
That was a very different situation. McCain felt, probably correctly, he had to shake up a race where a poor economic backdrop put the incumbent party in a bad position. So he deliberately went for a surprise choice, and for a woman on the ticket to try to address the fact that there was a huge "historic first" buzz around Obama.
Initially, it worked really well - he got a big bounce and really overshadowed the Democratic Convention by announcing at that time. That went sour as people got to know Palin... but it was ultimately a failed attempt to change the dynamics of a race that, both on paper and as it played out, was a very difficult one for McCain to win. In reality, Palin didn't lose it for McCain - she was ultimately a drag on the ticket, but he'd not have won with a highly conventional pick either.
Whereas McCain choosing Palin spoke of his lack of confidence in his prospects, Trump choosing Vance spoke of his OVERconfidence. He thought he was up against Biden and might as well choose someone in his own image. It was a classic unforced error. Whereas McCain's was more of a forced error - a Hail Mary pass.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Don't forget the carers' allowance. Go over the small allowed working salary by £1, lose the entire allowanc.e
A marginal rate of 130% which I faced at one point as a single earning family, when I had five under 18s was ridiculous.
40% Tax. 2% NI. ~40% Child Benefit withdrawal. 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal. £250 Marriage allowance loss. £360 social water bill loss.
All happily solved by putting anything above the threshold into Pension AVCs through salary sacrifice and paying 0% tax on it.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
It's not an attitude. For quite a few people, it is a reality.
I've had people sat in front of me, tearful at the possibility they "went over" on hours and that they'd get sanctioned. Fuck that shit.
If I had the power, I'd give people going from 16 hours a week to 40 hours a temporary *increase* in benefits. As a "well done".
And for long term unemployed who get back into work - start with a parade in their honour. Then extra money.
If you tax people past 50%, they will do lots of things to avoid the extra tax. This is known. So, when we tax people at 70%+, we are saying "don't do this".
Serious question for both of you.
Are benefit tapers of 70-100% still a thing, or are we on tax band tapers here - possibly exacerbated by Child Tax Credit?
I thought the benefit taper had been reduced to closer to 50% recently - to follow more closely IDS's original view of UC from 2013 or so (I give him credit for that, despite his current nonsense) that Osborne crippled to save money iirc?
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
Salisbury (and other events) involved using Russian agents - often the same 'tourists'.
What Russia appears to be doing now, in part, is using locally-based criminals. Making contact with a locally criminal gang in (say) Germany, and saying: "I think I might leave this bag of money here. It's a shame that weapons plant over there is still operating, isn't it..."
There have been loads of suspicious attacks where defence and Ukraine linked businesses have been targetted across Europe, in the manner you describe. But you can be certain that the Russian intelligence agencies are also sponsoring and egging-on protest groups to carry out attacks as well.
Green movements across Europe have been funded and encouraged to oppose fracking by Russia for decades.
Edit to add: I'm particularly bitter about this one because I lost a lot of money backing a company that had some incredible Polish gas shale acreage. And then fracking got banned, and the company became worthless.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Don't forget the carers' allowance. Go over the small allowed working salary by £1, lose the entire allowanc.e
A marginal rate of 130% which I faced at one point as a single earning family, when I had five under 18s was ridiculous.
40% Tax. 2% NI. ~40% Child Benefit withdrawal. 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal. £250 Marriage allowance loss. £360 social water bill loss.
All happily solved by putting anything above the threshold into Pension AVCs through salary sacrifice and paying 0% tax on it.
Quite absurd.
Probably a pedant writes - is "Child Benefit" not "not means tested"?
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
Completely disagree.
Unplanned, uncontrolled, unrestricted housebuilding is a recipe for disaster.
Quite apart from the infrastructure issues which I've mentioned, there's the quality of what's being built which you don't seem to want to address. If you build bad, it ends up being a long term financial burden and poor quality of life for those who thought they were getting a decent home. The houses built in the 1930s for example have stood the test of time. We know some house builders cut corners to save time and money and it's the poor owners who end up having to deal with the consequences.
The problem with your policy re: Section 106 is that would, under the current system which I know you want to sweep away, lead to many more objections to each development on the basis of "why should I pay for the new infrastructure on the other side of town from which I'm not going to derive any benefit?". The current system also allows for what kind of community improvement will be provided whether it be a new primary school or health centre based on the actual need of the area.
I don't know what you mean by "private new infrastructure". We're not talking about self-contained gated communities but infrastructure from which everyone, both those moving in to the new builds and those already there, benefits.
Off topic. Has the 1922 made a mess of the Conservative party leadership election? with more and more MPs putting their names forward It is quite possible that only one or two candidates will reach the threshold of 10 backers. One would be a disaster but less than 4 would mean that stretching the campaign to November would be silly and make the conference irrelevant. Members would not be impressed if they didn't have an effective say in the choice.
That is the sound of panic amongst insiders who bet the farm on a November handover.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
It's not an attitude. For quite a few people, it is a reality.
I've had people sat in front of me, tearful at the possibility they "went over" on hours and that they'd get sanctioned. Fuck that shit.
If I had the power, I'd give people going from 16 hours a week to 40 hours a temporary *increase* in benefits. As a "well done".
And for long term unemployed who get back into work - start with a parade in their honour. Then extra money.
If you tax people past 50%, they will do lots of things to avoid the extra tax. This is known. So, when we tax people at 70%+, we are saying "don't do this".
Serious question for both of you.
Are benefit tapers of 70-100% still a thing, or are we on tax band tapers here - possibly exacerbated by Child Tax Credit?
I thought the benefit taper had been reduced to closer to 50% recently - to follow more closely IDS's original view of UC from 2013 or so (I give him credit for that, despite his current nonsense) that Osborne crippled to save money iirc?
Its still a thing.
Universal Credit taper is 55% of all income after NI and Income Tax but before Student Loans.
Student Loan threshold now is £25k, barely above minimum wage.
So someone on say £16k paying Income Tax, NI and taper pays a marginal rate of:
Income Tax 20% National Insurance 8% Total tax 28% Taper 55% of 72% remaining = 39.6% Effective Tax: 67.6%
If someone is on £25k and is a graduate they face:
Income Tax 20% National Insurance 8% Student Loans 9% Taper 39.6% Effective Tax: 76.6%
And that's before considering anything else means tested.
What is the protocol for writing to an MP running a national campaign? Have I got to go through my MP - it may be too subtle for him?
All MPs websites say Don't come bothering me if you are not a constituent, I am not allowed to respond. But if the campaigning MP has a formal campaign set up you can presumably write to it.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Don't forget the carers' allowance. Go over the small allowed working salary by £1, lose the entire allowanc.e
A marginal rate of 130% which I faced at one point as a single earning family, when I had five under 18s was ridiculous.
40% Tax. 2% NI. ~40% Child Benefit withdrawal. 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal. £250 Marriage allowance loss. £360 social water bill loss.
All happily solved by putting anything above the threshold into Pension AVCs through salary sacrifice and paying 0% tax on it.
Quite absurd.
Probably a pedant writes - is "Child Benefit" not "not means tested"?
It wasn't until Gideon came up with his claw it back at 1% of whatever you get per £100 earned over £50k wheeze.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
There are £50k and £100k cut-offs for various child benefits.
Aren't those mainly Child Tax Credit type things for eg childcare, in for the benefit of households with incomes roughly in deciles 7->8 counting from the bottom (ie around the two top quartiles of household income)?
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
So you build a new house and move in. Then you decide you need a pee and retrofit a toilet. Then you feel like something to eat...
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
The purpose of salary sacrifice is to reduce income tax. This is by design as governments want to encourage certain behaviours like saving for your pension. Rachel Reeves could choose to limit the rate of that reduction, eg only allowing sacrifice at basic rate income tax
I know what it does. I just think most people still qualifying for benefits live hand to mouth and can't afford the savings. I do fear attacks on pension contributions, either by limiting the relief to the basic rate or severely limiting the tax free lump sum or both. Both of those will hit the better off hardest and raise serious cash. Taxes need to go up to sustain present levels of spending let alone any new spending Labour supporters want.
Labour always wreck people's pensions. careful to feather their own nests but happy to steal the plebs money.
Salary sacrifice comes into play with child benefit cutoff, as it was previously universal and Osborne's restriction of it is considered to be inequitable by many, and the NI taper, again considered inequitable by many affected.
Is our France profonde roving reporter still on the scene?
If its under attack he will be hiding somewhere as safe as he can find. We missed his top level reportage of Covid struck London after his craven fleeing to Wales.
Yes. Of course. That’s why I voluntarily went to war torn Ukraine TWICE - and saw a chunk of missile land on my Odessa boulevard and filmed the drone attacks on Odessa port from my hotel balcony
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Section 106 doesn't seem to work.
How about - laying out new suburbs/towns. Put the 'leccy, sewers, schools, hospitals, roads and rail in *first*. Then sell the plots for houses to builders, one road at a time.
That's how the Victorians and Edwardians did it in a number of cases.
Trouble is, that would require someone to invest- spend money upfront in the expectation of making a return in the future.
And at least sometimes, that someone has to be the State, which is automatic anathema for some.
(But yes, the social infrastructure has to be there in advance, and probably an overprovision for the first few years. Otherwise, new residents get into the habit of having to drive ten miles to the next town to do stuff, and the new community never really develops critical mass. The current model, where developers maximise profit by building out slowly, can't help there.)
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
I'm afraid David you could not be more wrong.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
It's not an attitude. For quite a few people, it is a reality.
I've had people sat in front of me, tearful at the possibility they "went over" on hours and that they'd get sanctioned. Fuck that shit.
If I had the power, I'd give people going from 16 hours a week to 40 hours a temporary *increase* in benefits. As a "well done".
And for long term unemployed who get back into work - start with a parade in their honour. Then extra money.
If you tax people past 50%, they will do lots of things to avoid the extra tax. This is known. So, when we tax people at 70%+, we are saying "don't do this".
Serious question for both of you.
Are benefit tapers of 70-100% still a thing, or are we on tax band tapers here - possibly exacerbated by Child Tax Credit?
I thought the benefit taper had been reduced to closer to 50% recently - to follow more closely IDS's original view of UC from 2013 or so (I give him credit for that, despite his current nonsense) that Osborne crippled to save money iirc?
Its still a thing.
Universal Credit taper is 55% of all income after NI and Income Tax but before Student Loans.
Student Loan threshold now is £25k, barely above minimum wage.
So someone on say £16k paying Income Tax, NI and taper pays a marginal rate of:
Income Tax 20% National Insurance 8% Total tax 28% Taper 55% of 72% remaining = 39.6% Effective Tax: 67.6%
If someone is on £25k and is a graduate they face:
Income Tax 20% National Insurance 8% Student Loans 9% Taper 39.6% Effective Tax: 76.6%
And that's before considering anything else means tested.
Which is now including utilities such as Broadband where you get a bigly discount if on UC. A lot of attractions down here do bigly UC discounts.
Lose the lot if you earn £1 too much or have £1 too much savings.
Off topic. Has the 1922 made a mess of the Conservative party leadership election? with more and more MPs putting their names forward It is quite possible that only one or two candidates will reach the threshold of 10 backers. One would be a disaster but less than 4 would mean that stretching the campaign to November would be silly and make the conference irrelevant. Members would not be impressed if they didn't have an effective say in the choice.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
The purpose of salary sacrifice is to reduce income tax. This is by design as governments want to encourage certain behaviours like saving for your pension. Rachel Reeves could choose to limit the rate of that reduction, eg only allowing sacrifice at basic rate income tax
I know what it does. I just think most people still qualifying for benefits live hand to mouth and can't afford the savings. I do fear attacks on pension contributions, either by limiting the relief to the basic rate or severely limiting the tax free lump sum or both. Both of those will hit the better off hardest and raise serious cash. Taxes need to go up to sustain present levels of spending let alone any new spending Labour supporters want.
Labour always wreck people's pensions. careful to feather their own nests but happy to steal the plebs money.
Salary sacrifice comes into play with child benefit cutoff, as it was previously universal and Osborne's restriction of it is considered to be inequitable by many, and the NI taper, again considered inequitable by many affected.
Note that all pensioners are on state benefits
I'd have thought Labour are far more likely to go after CGT loopholes, fiddling with pension relief could result in a bureaucratic balls-up and edge cases that would put (how hot is your pasty?) Osborne to shame.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
What is a "classic line". Is this French for "normal railway line"?
All Eurostar trains to and from Paris diverted via classic line The Eurostar confirmed that all high-speed lines going to and from Paris will be diverted.
“Due to coordinated acts of malice in France, affecting the high-speed line between Paris and Lille, all high-speed trains going to and coming from Paris are being diverted via the classic line today Friday July 26,” A Eurostar spokesman said.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure ...
Sorry but there is no such thing as "excessive housebuilding".
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
At last there seems to be a recognition of the importance of infrastructure in the housing/housebuilding crisis rather than the meaningless "build, build, build" mantra.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
Sorry, but no "as long as".
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
Completely disagree.
Unplanned, uncontrolled, unrestricted housebuilding is a recipe for disaster.
Quite apart from the infrastructure issues which I've mentioned, there's the quality of what's being built which you don't seem to want to address. If you build bad, it ends up being a long term financial burden and poor quality of life for those who thought they were getting a decent home. The houses built in the 1930s for example have stood the test of time. We know some house builders cut corners to save time and money and it's the poor owners who end up having to deal with the consequences.
The problem with your policy re: Section 106 is that would, under the current system which I know you want to sweep away, lead to many more objections to each development on the basis of "why should I pay for the new infrastructure on the other side of town from which I'm not going to derive any benefit?". The current system also allows for what kind of community improvement will be provided whether it be a new primary school or health centre based on the actual need of the area.
I don't know what you mean by "private new infrastructure". We're not talking about self-contained gated communities but infrastructure from which everyone, both those moving in to the new builds and those already there, benefits.
Completely disagreed.
If everyone benefits from new infrastructure, both those moving into new builds and those already there, then everyone should be paying for that infrastructure. Both those moving into new builds and those already there. It should have nothing to do with new builds.
I would sweep away both Section 106 and the ability to object simultaneously.
As for the quality of new houses, these are miles better than the poorly-maintained, often damp-ridden shit-holes that too many people have to live in due to the shortage of adequate housing. Increase supply enough and people will choose quality over the current position of there not being an alternative.
I live in a new build, constructed 2022. It is better insulated, better maintained, better quality and much lower cost to heat than the poor quality home we were renting in 2022 which had damp in my daughter's room. Your idea that old homes are better is a myth based on a privilege of not having to rent any old poorly maintained shit as that's all that's available.
"A typical 4kW solar panel system, including installation, costs £5,000 - £6,000. Added together, the total cost of solar panels and a battery in the UK is £13,000-£15,500.
You can save between £440 - £1,005 per year on electricity costs, breaking even in 7 - 9 years."
Lets say the cost is the midpoint £14,250 and the saving is the midpoint £772.50p per year.
If I invest the money instead I only need a 5.5% annual return to be better off?
(noting also that Robert is predicting a gas glut so fuel prices will fall, lessening the saving.
Whats the point?
5.5% post tax
Which is equivalent to a 10% pretax yield.
Equities typically return 7% per year pretax.
And, of course, if energy prices rise at the rate of inflation (which I claim they won't, of course), then that's 10% pretax index linked.
Hang on 5.5% pretax = 10% post tax. Even allowing for compounding that seems high.
Currently paying 0% tax on savings /investments though (ISA etc). That might change temporarily when I retire and get a lump sum though.
That's not the point I'm making.
If I offer to reduce your expenses by £100 a year, or to increase your pretax income by £100 year, which is worth more?
Understood. However in my case I pay no tax or NI on my primary savings/investments on the way in or the way out.
(its a salary sacrifice AVC that bolts onto a DB pension scheme and forms the up to 25% cash lump sum - effectively with a 5% of your gross pay contribution limit).
Prior to child benefit limit going up to £60k I was getting about 70% marginal tax relief on AVCs and a few years before that when I had five kids on child benefit I also qualified for a small amount of tax credits and got in excess of 100% tax relief on pension AVCs, which was quite absurd.
As an aside, if Rachel Reeves is looking to save a few quid, then salary sacrifice might be a place to look. It is increasingly being used to maintain entitlement to state benefits by artificially reducing high salaries below benefit thresholds.
Really? I think it is an issue much further up the salary scale with people trying to retain some of the PA or simply avoiding harsh marginal rates of tax. People who still qualify for benefits do not strike me as the sort who could afford to forgo income.
There are £50k and £100k cut-offs for various child benefits.
Aren't those mainly Child Tax Credit type things for eg childcare, in for the benefit of households with incomes roughly in deciles 7->8 counting from the bottom (ie around the two top quartiles of household income)?
(Not arguing a side - trying to elucidate.)
Since Brown brought in tax credits they go a lot higher up the income scale if you have kids, live in rented accomodation or both.
Indeed until the two child limit on UC came in, there were people paying higher rate (40%) income tax who got tax credits/UC. Have a play here. It is quite illuminating.
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, doing something like this is incredible stupid.
Priestman removed as Olympic boss over drone incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c2x0y786rv0o Canada women's football manager Beverly Priestman has been removed as Olympic head coach and suspended by the country's football federation as the fall out continued after a drone was flown over New Zealand's training session on Monday. Canada Soccer said it took the action because "over the past 24 hours, additional information has come to our attention regarding previous drone use against opponents, predating the Paris 2024 Olympic Games". English-born Priestman, 38, had "voluntarily" withdrawn from her side's opening 2-0 victory over the Kiwis on Thursday, while Jasmine Mander, Priestman's assistant, was sent home along with "unaccredited analyst" Joseph Lombardi. On Thursday a French court said Lombardi had been handed an eight-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to flying a drone in an urban area without a licence...
The prospect of weaponised drones at mass public events is now a pretty scary one. And there aren't, for now, any good answers to the problem.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
What is a "classic line". Is this French for "normal railway line"?
All Eurostar trains to and from Paris diverted via classic line The Eurostar confirmed that all high-speed lines going to and from Paris will be diverted.
“Due to coordinated acts of malice in France, affecting the high-speed line between Paris and Lille, all high-speed trains going to and coming from Paris are being diverted via the classic line today Friday July 26,” A Eurostar spokesman said.
A 'classic' line is a non-high speed line, probably built in the 1800s. In our case, that would be the WCML out of Euston as compared to HS2. In fact, we were due to call out high-speed trains that could operate on both HS2 and the old network 'classic-compatible'.
This is on a par with the sort of things that happened in Ireland in 1921.
"France’s train network sabotaged in ‘massive arson attack’ hours ahead of Olympics opening ceremony Services on several routes cancelled after TGV facilities damaged, country’s rail operator says
“SNCF was the victim of several simultaneous malicious acts overnight,” the national train operator said, adding that the attacks affected its Atlantic, northern and eastern lines."
Actually it happened in France before, on the 5th/6th of June 1944.
It was the only language they understood
The Russians are cruising for a hell of a kicking. This more or less open sabotage will lead to blow back. I came back from France yesterday and the mood towards Russia is increasingly hostile. If there is a successful sabotage, I think the DGSE will really go after the organisers as well as the perpetrators.
What makes you think it is the Russians?
Because the French government warned of a direct threat a couple of days ago when they arrested a sleeper agent.
What is a "classic line". Is this French for "normal railway line"?
All Eurostar trains to and from Paris diverted via classic line The Eurostar confirmed that all high-speed lines going to and from Paris will be diverted.
“Due to coordinated acts of malice in France, affecting the high-speed line between Paris and Lille, all high-speed trains going to and coming from Paris are being diverted via the classic line today Friday July 26,” A Eurostar spokesman said.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
The bit of Cambridgeshire I know is St Ives, which I think is a similar population to your gaff, but as a historic town has way more infrastructure.
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
So you build a new house and move in. Then you decide you need a pee and retrofit a toilet. Then you feel like something to eat...
I think people generally fit a toilet while constructing a home since its a part of the home.
But as for something to eat etc there's no reason that can't follow new builds. Indeed it will, those that sell something to eat want customers, they won't go in before customers are there but they will invest if there are customers around.
I live in a rapidly developing area. Since I moved in both an Aldi and Lidl have opened nearby, they weren't there when we moved in. They've opened precisely because there are more customers here so they've done the rational thing of investing in a store to attract those customers.
If there's potential customers and potential employees in an area then firms will invest in that area. They won't do so because you're promising those customers will be there after you've invested first.
It is starting to look like picking Vance was the biggest unforced running mate error since McCain thought Sarah Palin was a good idea.
Childless cat ladies rant will have a similar lasting impact as deplorables rant.
The bizarre thing is that in his book - the one that made him famous and the reason he is veep nominee - he talks movingly of his grandparents struggle to have children and various miscarriages.
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, doing something like this is incredible stupid.
Priestman removed as Olympic boss over drone incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c2x0y786rv0o Canada women's football manager Beverly Priestman has been removed as Olympic head coach and suspended by the country's football federation as the fall out continued after a drone was flown over New Zealand's training session on Monday. Canada Soccer said it took the action because "over the past 24 hours, additional information has come to our attention regarding previous drone use against opponents, predating the Paris 2024 Olympic Games". English-born Priestman, 38, had "voluntarily" withdrawn from her side's opening 2-0 victory over the Kiwis on Thursday, while Jasmine Mander, Priestman's assistant, was sent home along with "unaccredited analyst" Joseph Lombardi. On Thursday a French court said Lombardi had been handed an eight-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to flying a drone in an urban area without a licence...
The prospect of weaponised drones at mass public events is now a pretty scary one. And there aren't, for now, any good answers to the problem.
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
I'm not looking for an excuse to block housing. But at the moment we're getting housing but not enough supporting infrastructure - and this really matters. I fear your vision for housing would just be sink estates in a couple of decades' time.
At the moment we're not getting either enough housing nor enough infrastructure.
That we're not getting enough of the latter is not an excuse to restrict the former.
That's like saying to someone who is thirsty and hungry "no water for you, until you find more food".
If this sabotage continues and “succeeds” then it could be the end of the Games as we know them. Who would ever want to host if there’s a major chance of disaster?
Re Black Hole...as Paul Johnson from the IFS has said now with the OBR and more data than ever available there is no unknown surprise of a black hole. Excluding some rounding around the edge, all the numbers that are required are available to all. Its all theatre to claim you have only just discovered it.
No - it won't be a surprise to them because they were telling the truth during the election campaign and before. Meanwhile, Hunt was telling us that everything was wonderful - a delusion he carried forward to the King's Speech debate earlier this week.
Actually both Labour and the Tories were extremely reticent about addressing the implied 'black hole' in the finances which every financial commentator recognised was implied by Hunt's existing tax & spending plans.
Reeves is now fessing up to what everyone paying attention already knew.
Which makes her as least as much of a lying scumbag as the previous government.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes). (Snip)
". I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, "
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
Investment follows demand, it doesn't precede it.
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
So you build a new house and move in. Then you decide you need a pee and retrofit a toilet. Then you feel like something to eat...
I think people generally fit a toilet while constructing a home since its a part of the home.
But as for something to eat etc there's no reason that can't follow new builds. Indeed it will, those that sell something to eat want customers, they won't go in before customers are there but they will invest if there are customers around.
I live in a rapidly developing area. Since I moved in both an Aldi and Lidl have opened nearby, they weren't there when we moved in. They've opened precisely because there are more customers here so they've done the rational thing of investing in a store to attract those customers.
If there's potential customers and potential employees in an area then firms will invest in that area. They won't do so because you're promising those customers will be there after you've invested first.
It is starting to look like picking Vance was the biggest unforced running mate error since McCain thought Sarah Palin was a good idea.
Childless cat ladies rant will have a similar lasting impact as deplorables rant.
The bizarre thing is that in his book - the one that made him famous and the reason he is veep nominee - he talks movingly of his grandparents struggle to have children and various miscarriages.
2024 Vance is a very different person to 2016 Vance. I feel quite sorry for 2016 Vance.
Moved my book by -290.09 Trump / + 449.42 Harris (& the field) yesterday, basically a lay at 1.644. Trump's only moved out to 1.66/67 I think he should be out further off the back of the Michigan poll. Since the movement's been only one way I expect more polls should move Harris' odds in - at least that's what I'm hoping.
Comments
Still, any excuse on PB to hate the vegans.
"I can't do that work or I'll lose my benefits", or "the JobCentre doesn't let me work more than 16 hours" is a very real attitude, created by our benefit system and the cliff edges that exist in it. UC made it better than it was under Brown, but its still absolutely horrendous which I've been banging on about forever.
If you face a real marginal tax rate of 70-100% why would you bother doing more work? Picking up extra shifts for example? Especially if to do so will give you extra costs (like transport into work) that you won't have to pay if you don't do that work.
Only working 16 hours per week is a 'sweet spot' for many people which maximises benefits while minimising work, and our tax and benefit cliff edge means that working more hours doesn't really make them any better off.
My big gripe is with all the "Broken Britain" memes. I live in a small town that's rapidly being wrecked by excessive housebuilding without the construction of matching infrastructure, but even so last few times I've needed to see a doctor I've had appointments done on the same day. My wife had a baby a couple of weeks ago - whilst I've a few issues with some of the post birth care, none of that was anything to do with resources, and more to do with staff who didn't listen to what they were told (and I found out subsequently in a couple of cases wrote the exact opposite of what they were told on the notes).
There are constantly calls for more spending for public services, but my experience of them is that they don't need money spending - they need the organisations fixing.
Classic example - I needed an MRI scan. So I'm booked in for one at a Manchester hospital. Before the scan, I'm sent a checklist basically about "have I got bits of metal in me anywhere?"
One question - have I ever had any metal splinters removed from an eye. I have, so I ring the number on the checklist as instructed. I speak to someone helpful "that's fine, please come 30 mins earlier than the appointment, we'll Xray and check there is no metal in your eyes first".
So I duly rock up, and after an hour of waiting about it transpires that the message that I needed an Xray didn't get passed on and they can't actually do one. So the expensive MRI slot gets wasted (as well as most of a day of my time) because someone didn't pass a message on.
A week later, a receptionist from the same hospital rings up - they've got a new booking for me, with the Xray included. They say something unclear about it being at MRI, which I take as the MRI department.
Turn up fairly early for this appointment, receptionist can't find me on the list. It eventually transpires that I'm booked at Manchester Royal Infirmary, not where I am, and that's what the receptionist who rang me was referring to when she said MRI. Only that's 30 mins away and my appointment is in 10 mins. I made it there, explained, got rushed through the Xray and had the MRI scan, but it was very nearly a second expensive missed appointment.
I'm fairly sure this sort of thing goes on all the time in the NHS. More money won't fix it - it's a culture problem, not a cash problem. But the only solution politicians know is more cash, so they keep shoveling in more, and wondering why it doesn't seem to be yielding results.
Lower down the pay scale, simply not doing extra work, only working 16 hours a week for instance, is how people react to the cliff edge.
Is our France profonde roving reporter still on the scene?
I agree that there are disincentives to work through our system that need worked on but that is a different thing.
The problem is that it is a fine line for them to tread, and it is perfectly possible that they go too far and cause a response from the west.
And then the usual suspects will screech 'escalation!!!!' about our actions...
We have a chronic housing shortage and there is nowhere in the country with a surplus of housing, so there is no "excessive" anywhere.
You may have a problem of a lack of infrastructure, many places do, but that is a reason to demand more infrastructure not fewer homes when we have a chronic housing shortage.
Whether it be UC, child benefit, personal allowance or any other cliff edge, people respond to the cliff edges by changing their behaviour.
The solution isn't to punish people, its to remove the cliff edges.
Sky reporting 800,000 travellers affected by the chaos in France
What Russia appears to be doing now, in part, is using locally-based criminals. Making contact with a locally criminal gang in (say) Germany, and saying: "I think I might leave this bag of money here. It's a shame that weapons plant over there is still operating, isn't it..."
They've also generally got much cannier:
https://www.economist.com/international/2024/02/20/russian-spies-are-back-and-more-dangerous-than-ever
Then they will develop a bad back or a mental health condition.
Another consequence is that employers prefer to hire five UC recipients working 16 hours than twp full time workers as the latter will entail employer NI payments and the former wont. Plus the full time workers wont be happy with minimum wage (unlike the UC recipients who don't care as most of their income is from UC and a pay rise gets knocked off the UC payments)
Brown invented a horrible poverty trap that also subsidises employers.
Where I've had possible confusion it's been between diabetes checks at the GP and diabetes checks at the hospital department, and someone not recognising larger context.
I'd say that's around leadership at the MRI setting a uniform culture. I hope you've been able to find a way to explain the problem.
I pointed out a couple of not dissimilar issues in the comments this weeks. Most blatantly the City Corporation giving a Freedom of the City to a wheelchair user for disabled campaigning, then not installing the wheelchair ramp to the platform because one of their staff decided "she would not want it".
(I did not realise that Freedom of the City was something you can apply for, and becomes a career development item.)
TBH Sainte-Eulalie-de-Cernon doesn’t feel like a place at war this sunny morning, but it could be La calme devant le tempete
I also reckon it’s the Russians
If they can't be bothered to do so, they don't deserve to be in office.
The last government failed to do so. This new one has an opportunity, if they put it in the "too difficult" pile too, then they deserve to (and will) ultimately fail too.
Punchy
I think there may a confusion in this conversation between moving income out of tax through salary sacrifice and forgoing income through reduced hours worked to avoid cliff edges. The second can apply to people on very low incomes getting income support.
I've never really understood it, but hey people be people.
I'm more than happy to see hundreds of thousands of new homes built as long as the supporting infrastructure is in place and that's not just utilities or transport. It's making sure the existing community infrastructure of schools, libraries, health facilities, refuse collection and all the rest of the areas the pro-building lobby doesn't seem to either consider or think important are also in place or planned (I've used the "P" word, I'll be in trouble for that).
House builders and developers already contribute to this via Section 106 payments but these need to be ramped up as a development is far more than just the bricks, mortar and pipework. As an aside, there needs to be much rigorous inspection of newbuilds given the horror stories coming out about the poor quality of construction.
This is where I think politicians have got it all wrong. They're concentrating on housebuilding, when we need to be concentrating on building communities.
The first is relatively easy. The second is much harder and more expensive, but vital.
As an example, the new town I live in is being massively expanded. Yet the overworked GP surgery is not being expanded to suit. Neither is the library. We still don't have a High Street, and the rental costs of the few shop units available are astronomical.
Oh, and congrats on the new addition to your family. Hope you're all well.
I've had people sat in front of me, tearful at the possibility they "went over" on hours and that they'd get sanctioned. Fuck that shit.
If I had the power, I'd give people going from 16 hours a week to 40 hours a temporary *increase* in benefits. As a "well done".
And for long term unemployed who get back into work - start with a parade in their honour. Then extra money.
If you tax people past 50%, they will do lots of things to avoid the extra tax. This is known. So, when we tax people at 70%+, we are saying "don't do this".
Edit to add: I'm particularly bitter about this one because I lost a lot of money backing a company that had some incredible Polish gas shale acreage. And then fracking got banned, and the company became worthless.
And, in fact, excessive and often unpredictable regulation, by discouraging investment, will do as much to retard automation overall as to encourage it.
It Trump in 2024 stronger or weaker than Trump in 2020? A bit Stronger, because opposition is his thing.
Ergo, the election will be close.
Build, build, build is the only solution.
Yes we need other investments too, but they need to happen on top of (not before or instead of, or conditional upon or vice-versa) more housing.
Section 106 should be totally abolished in my view. All taxpayers equally should pay for new public infrastructure not just new home buyers. Private new infrastructure should be owned by the buyer privately, that's all they should be paying for.
Collapse of developers blamed as lack of new builds dubbed 'shambles'
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/collapse-developers-blamed-lack-new-29614189#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
How about - laying out new suburbs/towns. Put the 'leccy, sewers, schools, hospitals, roads and rail in *first*. Then sell the plots for houses to builders, one road at a time.
That's how the Victorians and Edwardians did it in a number of cases.
How about just let people build homes wherever the f**k they want (apart from very limited areas zoned for no construction such as AONB) and then if new public infrastructure is needed, then that is paid for.
Initially, it worked really well - he got a big bounce and really overshadowed the Democratic Convention by announcing at that time. That went sour as people got to know Palin... but it was ultimately a failed attempt to change the dynamics of a race that, both on paper and as it played out, was a very difficult one for McCain to win. In reality, Palin didn't lose it for McCain - she was ultimately a drag on the ticket, but he'd not have won with a highly conventional pick either.
Whereas McCain choosing Palin spoke of his lack of confidence in his prospects, Trump choosing Vance spoke of his OVERconfidence. He thought he was up against Biden and might as well choose someone in his own image. It was a classic unforced error. Whereas McCain's was more of a forced error - a Hail Mary pass.
40% Tax.
2% NI.
~40% Child Benefit withdrawal.
41% Tax Credits Withdrawal.
£250 Marriage allowance loss.
£360 social water bill loss.
All happily solved by putting anything above the threshold into Pension AVCs through salary sacrifice and paying 0% tax on it.
Quite absurd.
Are benefit tapers of 70-100% still a thing, or are we on tax band tapers here - possibly exacerbated by Child Tax Credit?
I thought the benefit taper had been reduced to closer to 50% recently - to follow more closely IDS's original view of UC from 2013 or so (I give him credit for that, despite his current nonsense) that Osborne crippled to save money iirc?
If a second GP surgery is needed, then invest in it.
If enough customers are there to make a High Street viable, then firms will (privately) invest in it.
If investment in the library is needed, then invest in it.
But none of that is an excuse to block housing.
https://www.ft.com/content/20201c36-f7db-11e3-baf5-00144feabdc0
What is the protocol for writing to an MP running a national campaign? Have I got to go through my MP - it may be too subtle for him?
Unplanned, uncontrolled, unrestricted housebuilding is a recipe for disaster.
Quite apart from the infrastructure issues which I've mentioned, there's the quality of what's being built which you don't seem to want to address. If you build bad, it ends up being a long term financial burden and poor quality of life for those who thought they were getting a decent home. The houses built in the 1930s for example have stood the test of time. We know some house builders cut corners to save time and money and it's the poor owners who end up having to deal with the consequences.
The problem with your policy re: Section 106 is that would, under the current system which I know you want to sweep away, lead to many more objections to each development on the basis of "why should I pay for the new infrastructure on the other side of town from which I'm not going to derive any benefit?". The current system also allows for what kind of community improvement will be provided whether it be a new primary school or health centre based on the actual need of the area.
I don't know what you mean by "private new infrastructure". We're not talking about self-contained gated communities but infrastructure from which everyone, both those moving in to the new builds and those already there, benefits.
Universal Credit taper is 55% of all income after NI and Income Tax but before Student Loans.
Student Loan threshold now is £25k, barely above minimum wage.
So someone on say £16k paying Income Tax, NI and taper pays a marginal rate of:
Income Tax 20%
National Insurance 8%
Total tax 28%
Taper 55% of 72% remaining = 39.6%
Effective Tax: 67.6%
If someone is on £25k and is a graduate they face:
Income Tax 20%
National Insurance 8%
Student Loans 9%
Taper 39.6%
Effective Tax: 76.6%
And that's before considering anything else means tested.
Labour has a massive headache here and not many people are paying much attention.
The government must mitigate the risks of a university going under
https://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-government-must-mitigate-the-risks-of-a-university-going-under/
(Not arguing a side - trying to elucidate.)
Note that all pensioners are on state benefits
And at least sometimes, that someone has to be the State, which is automatic anathema for some.
(But yes, the social infrastructure has to be there in advance, and probably an overprovision for the first few years. Otherwise, new residents get into the habit of having to drive ten miles to the next town to do stuff, and the new community never really develops critical mass. The current model, where developers maximise profit by building out slowly, can't help there.)
Lose the lot if you earn £1 too much or have £1 too much savings.
All Eurostar trains to and from Paris diverted via classic line
The Eurostar confirmed that all high-speed lines going to and from Paris will be diverted.
“Due to coordinated acts of malice in France, affecting the high-speed line between Paris and Lille, all high-speed trains going to and coming from Paris are being diverted via the classic line today Friday July 26,” A Eurostar spokesman said.
GOP operatives concerned if Kamala picks Shapiro.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republicans-see-gov-josh-shapiro-harris-super-strong-vp-contender-rcna163322
If everyone benefits from new infrastructure, both those moving into new builds and those already there, then everyone should be paying for that infrastructure. Both those moving into new builds and those already there. It should have nothing to do with new builds.
I would sweep away both Section 106 and the ability to object simultaneously.
As for the quality of new houses, these are miles better than the poorly-maintained, often damp-ridden shit-holes that too many people have to live in due to the shortage of adequate housing. Increase supply enough and people will choose quality over the current position of there not being an alternative.
I live in a new build, constructed 2022. It is better insulated, better maintained, better quality and much lower cost to heat than the poor quality home we were renting in 2022 which had damp in my daughter's room. Your idea that old homes are better is a myth based on a privilege of not having to rent any old poorly maintained shit as that's all that's available.
Indeed until the two child limit on UC came in, there were people paying higher rate (40%) income tax who got tax credits/UC.
Have a play here. It is quite illuminating.
https://www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator/Intro/Home?cid=60545d6c-2c7a-4bde-a48f-c1629ba576e4
Priestman removed as Olympic boss over drone incident
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c2x0y786rv0o
Canada women's football manager Beverly Priestman has been removed as Olympic head coach and suspended by the country's football federation as the fall out continued after a drone was flown over New Zealand's training session on Monday.
Canada Soccer said it took the action because "over the past 24 hours, additional information has come to our attention regarding previous drone use against opponents, predating the Paris 2024 Olympic Games".
English-born Priestman, 38, had "voluntarily" withdrawn from her side's opening 2-0 victory over the Kiwis on Thursday, while Jasmine Mander, Priestman's assistant, was sent home along with "unaccredited analyst" Joseph Lombardi.
On Thursday a French court said Lombardi had been handed an eight-month suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to flying a drone in an urban area without a licence...
The prospect of weaponised drones at mass public events is now a pretty scary one.
And there aren't, for now, any good answers to the problem.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
58m
The key swing state - Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania - are all margin of error in the averages.
With Harris as the nominee the race is too close to call confidently now.
https://x.com/Samfr
It's all very well saying that more infrastructure should be provided, but right now it clearly isn't. So something, maybe beefing up state provision, maybe nudging the invisible hand of the market, needs to change. Either that, or we need benevolent nobility to manage the process, as at Poundbury.
But as for something to eat etc there's no reason that can't follow new builds. Indeed it will, those that sell something to eat want customers, they won't go in before customers are there but they will invest if there are customers around.
I live in a rapidly developing area. Since I moved in both an Aldi and Lidl have opened nearby, they weren't there when we moved in. They've opened precisely because there are more customers here so they've done the rational thing of investing in a store to attract those customers.
If there's potential customers and potential employees in an area then firms will invest in that area. They won't do so because you're promising those customers will be there after you've invested first.
That we're not getting enough of the latter is not an excuse to restrict the former.
That's like saying to someone who is thirsty and hungry "no water for you, until you find more food".
Do what actually works… like this did
I feel quite sorry for 2016 Vance.