Howdy, Stranger!

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

Diagnosing the NHS – politicalbetting.com

2456710

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,581

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    100 million. What is the total number of people who actually vote in the USA election. 146 million?
    100 million will not have watched all three hours. Most will have just dipped in for a few minutes to check it out. I'll probably do the same.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    Good piece Max. It's always a concern when people across the political spectrum can agree on things; usually means we have a problem of utmost seriousness.

    I'd add the pernicious role of technology. The NHS has actually got very good at treating the symptoms of unhealthy lifestyles, and so we have both a problem with Moral Hazard and with innovation escalating costs rather than reducing them. Heart diseases in particular (look at the enormous drop in men dying from heart attacks); Ozempic is just another example.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,413

    Interesting piece by Max, I'd like to see real food cooking taught in all schools, national cooking/cookery campaigns, and more visits to farmers/farms at all levels of education.

    One thing: I get leaflets through the door every other week from Dominos and PapaJohns, both of which I hate. Yes, they can post what they like - and no doubt this is part of an aggressive marketing campaign - but things like this combined with JustEat and Deliveroo make it very very easy to eat shit.

    How do we make it easier to eat well?

    Do you know who reduced the teaching of cooking in schools in the late 1980s? Margaret Thatcher. Listen to https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00y50qm
    Hey, I've got some good news for you: she left office over 33 years ago.
    Yes, Casino. Notice how I typed “in the late 1980s”. I’m aware that the late 1980s is a fair while ago. I was providing some historical background.
    Thanks. I'm glad you're here.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,813
    edited October 26
    Taxes were always going to be going up in some way or another this cycle. So I don’t really take issue with tax rises per se. The debate for me is how you do it. Reeves has had a lot of time to work this out, given the length of time between the election and the budget.

    The employer NI feels to me to be a blunt force tool, and there would have been far better ways to go about raising revenue through “work” taxes. Yes there was the (foolish) manifesto commitment, but I think she’d have been far better politically and economically looking at an income tax restructure - raise the personal allowance a bit, get rid of the cliff edges, nudge it up a little at the other end - then you’d be ideally left with a system where the lower paid aren’t touched or even get a little bit more take home, the disincentives are removed, and Labour get their soundbites about the higher earners broadly contributing more. Maybe she’ll surprise us with something on it, but doubtful.

    At the other end the time is nigh for a council tax reband, IMHO. I’m not sure if they’ve got the guts to go for it, but they should.

    I am hoping, given that it appears the employer NI changes won’t affect pension contributions, they stay away from the whole pensions/savings landscape, which I think would be a big mistake.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    GIN1138 said:

    Is Meghan still doing her podcast on Spotify?

    Kamala could go on that? :D

    LOL no, thankfully.

    Veep did actually do the most popular female-demographic podcast on Spotify, a podcast called “Call Her Daddy”

    It’s a Spotify exclusive, but there was a clip posted to Youtube.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KCRsjPCiCI
    It has 680,000 views in two weeks.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    edited October 26
    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    So his plan is to shift the burden of taxation from the very rich onto the middle class.
    While quite possibly triggering a world recession.

    Rogan is of course too dim to explore such things.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,052

    Interesting piece by Max, I'd like to see real food cooking taught in all schools, national cooking/cookery campaigns, and more visits to farmers/farms at all levels of education.

    One thing: I get leaflets through the door every other week from Dominos and PapaJohns, both of which I hate. Yes, they can post what they like - and no doubt this is part of an aggressive marketing campaign - but things like this combined with JustEat and Deliveroo make it very very easy to eat shit.

    How do we make it easier to eat well?

    Do you know who reduced the teaching of cooking in schools in the late 1980s? Margaret Thatcher. Listen to https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00y50qm
    Hey, I've got some good news for you: she left office over 33 years ago.
    Yes, Casino. Notice how I typed “in the late 1980s”. I’m aware that the late 1980s is a fair while ago. I was providing some historical background.
    Thanks. I'm glad you're here.
    Your warm, friendly welcome to all has always let me know how you are glad I and others are here.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,641
    edited October 26

    theProle said:

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    Some money from profits to pay NI. Haha. Hahahaaaahaaaaaa. Hahahahahaaaahaaaaaa.

    One of the reasons payroll taxes are so stupid is that they happen profit or no profit. I would rather they increased Corporation tax - it's a stupid tax too, but at least you have to make a notional profit(*) before they steal it.

    If you are running a business in a start-up or expansion phase, you generally haven't got a profit - but payroll taxes still have to be paid - and the greater they are, the slower your expansion, and the more you have to borrow whilst you try and make a go of things. This is a short-term bad effect from changing rates - in the longer term, it will just mean reduced pay for employees, as it's well known that in a steady state without rule changes 100% of the incidence of payroll taxes falls on employees.

    *one of the real problems for small businesses, particularly those which are expanding, is that it's possible to make a paper profit without making a cash profit, then get clobbered for a corp tax bill without having any actual additional cash in the business with which to pay said bill.
    I am sorry but this just is wrong. Yes on a micro level you might not increase employee pay because of increased payroll costs but on a macro level if the market rate for your employees increases you have a choice to pay the market rate or lose employees/choice of employees. This is just supply and demand in a market economy.
    As we have full employment, indeed Labour shortages in many areas, there is scope for payroll taxes. Indeed by putting up the cost of labour we are likely to drive productivity improvements.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051
    edited October 26

    There is no quick fix to healthcare just a slog to get on top of the monster.

    Move to an insureance based system
    Take on the BMA
    Use AI
    Train more doctors and nurses
    Start healthcare at primary school with good food and exercise.

    “Use AI” to do what? People throw this statement around like it’s magic. I wish we’d abolish the use of the term and just talk about LLMs, clever algorithms, etc. If you mean more efficient appointments and something around dispensing prescriptions where it’s really only label matching, then yes. If you mean getting into diagnosis then please go and read some of the studies. E.g. the AI people thought was diagnosing cancer but was actually just recognising the mark the radiographer noted on the plate as a “bring this to radiologist’s attention I have seen it before” reminder.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    Hilarious post, and tellingly defensive.
    A tellingly defensive reply, too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Before the election some Tories and Tory commentators not that far away used to delight at the “scorched Earth” they would leave for Labour. The idea was to break things so badly that any incoming administration would have to make unpopular decisions and last one term.

    We might like to remember that when they complain about tax rises.

    That's absolute nonsense.

    It's a nice political attempt at framing, but the trouble is it doesn't wash because firstly it's not true and secondly your party hasn't had the message and action discipline to make it stick.
    Tories are like a spoiled teenager with a hangover, complaining about the noise of someone clearing up the house that their party trashed the night before.

    When it’s your vomit, you don’t get to criticise the cleaner.
    The rest of us certainly do, though.
    And will.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    biggles said:

    There is no quick fix to healthcare just a slog to get on top of the monster.

    Move to an insureance based system
    Take on the BMA
    Use AI
    Train more doctors and nurses
    Start healthcare at primary school with good food and exercise.

    “Use AI” to do what? People throw this statement around like it’s magic. I wish we’d abolish the use of the term and just talk about LLMs, clever algorithms, etc. If you mean more efficient appointments and something around dispensing prescriptions where it’s really only panel matching, then yes. If you mean getting into diagnosis then please go and read some of the studies. E.g. the AI people thought was diagnosing cancer but was actually just recognising the mark the radiographer noted on the plate as a “bring this to radiologist’s attention I have seen it before” reminder”.
    It's the new "reform" and "boost productivity".
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    edited October 26
    The Dems will be relieved that Israel didn’t go further with their retaliation.

    The last thing they want is a sudden spike in energy prices towards Election Day . Gas prices have fallen this week after a slight uptick last week .

    In terms of the final jobs report due next Friday . There was a point when it was possible that there could have been a net loss of jobs due to a range of factors , the two hurricanes , the Boeing strike and knock on effects if the east coast and Gulf dockworkers strike had continued .

    The latter was sorted quickly and current estimates are that the US should still see around 100,000 new jobs created . Analysts expect the other two factors to knock around 50,000 jobs off the report but 100,000 would still be likely .

    Rumours were circulating about some possible story breaking re Trump. This was given further legs by one of Trumps own campaign team suggesting one or two stories might break , seeming to want to get ahead of that .

    The model /Epstein story doesn’t look like much and gained little attention . So if anything else breaks it’s likely to be tomorrow in time for the Sunday shows .

    It would seem strange though to leave it this late although perhaps lessons might be from the Access Hollywood tape , many think it came out too soon and allowed the Trump campaign too much time to respond .

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,787
    F1: no bet this time but here's a wibble about Mexico, pre-qualifying:
    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/10/mexico-pre-qualifying-2024.html
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    edited October 26

    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    This would turbocharge inflation with all imports massively increasing in price. Consumers would switch to domestically produced items where possible, so you’d have to increase tariffs even more to raise enough revenue. It would be like imposing sanctions on yourself.
    There would indeed be some inflation as the cost of imports rises, but the US is self sufficient in an awful lot of products and still has a wide manufacturing base. Medium term it would see investment in domestic manufacturing, as the sheer size of the domestic market makes this worthwhile for many companies.

    I’m not sure he would be worried about the revenue declining over time, as he plans on significant (and deflationary) reductions in Federal spending - he’s also term limited, so any problems are for the next guy to handle.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    Foxy said:

    Thanks for an interesting header @maxh

    I agree that there needs to be a much more positive approach to preventative care, but am sceptical that it will make the difference needed. The rise in obesity and diabetes etc is a worldwide phenomenon, and so is the decline in mortality from cardiac disease. The rest of the world is gorging on junk food, skiving exercise and hoping to jab themselves thin too. We are 55th of the 193 countries listed here for obesity rates: https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/

    As I pointed out in my header on the 70th Birthday of the NHS, insurance systems whether run by states or corporations are essentially re-distributive, shifting money from young healthy people to older and unhealthy people. Unless a lot of people are left without cover, the problem remains the same.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/01/three-score-and-ten-has-the-nhs-reached-the-end-of-its-natural-life/

    I think my proposal to untangle the knot to meet consumer demand, while maintaining a service for everyone of individual SIPP accounts ringfenced for health and social care is a much better one than insurance. It would be reasonable to be able to pay for gym memberships* etc from this too, but would give individual citizens a pot to pay for private healthcare and generate a better and more consumer responsive private medical system in this country.

    *not that I am convinced gyms are the answer. Far better is exercise designed into life for active travel, so walking and cycling are the default.

    The prevention narrative normally finds non-smoking c(C?)onservative faithfuls whining that Big Brother-Nanny State is preventing them from smoking and it's an outrageous infringement of their civil liberties.
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 182
    Interesting thread. I think around 40% of the NHS’s budget is spent on inpatient beds.

    90% of those patients have come through the ED. Even a small reduction in admissions would have a huge impact.

    I think the problem is a lack of capital investment, particularly in IT. Staffing levels are up about 15% compared to pre Covid but they are working in crap,and inefficient conditions
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    When Shakespeare wrote THAT speech did he go for a cup of tea afterwards? Do some tidying up? Maybe he looked at a parchment of porn or went for a pint with Ben Jonson

    “Do any work today Bill?”

    “Yeah. Wrote a speech.”

    “Any good?”

    “Meh, it’s ok. My round?”

    And here we are five centuries later marvelling at it, a speech that can still rouse Englishmen - any men on earth with a heart - to dreams of valour and greatness

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,956
    In ‘Jess Phillips is a fckng idiot who gets carried away with the sound of her own voice’ news.

    https://x.com/stevepowers_/status/1849865063160742357?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 182
    biggles said:

    There is no quick fix to healthcare just a slog to get on top of the monster.

    Move to an insureance based system
    Take on the BMA
    Use AI
    Train more doctors and nurses
    Start healthcare at primary school with good food and exercise.

    “Use AI” to do what? People throw this statement around like it’s magic. I wish we’d abolish the use of the term and just talk about LLMs, clever algorithms, etc. If you mean more efficient appointments and something around dispensing prescriptions where it’s really only label matching, then yes. If you mean getting into diagnosis then please go and read some of the studies. E.g. the AI people thought was diagnosing cancer but was actually just recognising the mark the radiographer noted on the plate as a “bring this to radiologist’s attention I have seen it before” reminder.
    The underpants gnomes have the answer

  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051
    edited October 26

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    One bit that's not quite true in the header:
    ..In all the years following politics and more specifically the NHS debate I’ve only ever seen one solution proposed by both parties, increase supply to match demand, this inevitably means more money or spreading resources more thinly over a larger surface area – usually a mixture of both...

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - which emerged from an idea of Major's government, and was set up by New Labour, has made a decent stab at analysing cost/benefits if new treatments and setting clinical guidelines.
    It does impose a form of rationing.

    Of course it's a centralised, somewhat bureaucratic solution, and you don't really get the benefits of competitive (and then widely disseminated) innovative practice that you see in (eg) Taiwan.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,956
    Leon said:

    When Shakespeare wrote THAT speech did he go for a cup of tea afterwards? Do some tidying up? Maybe he looked at a parchment of porn or went for a pint with Ben Jonson

    “Do any work today Bill?”

    “Yeah. Wrote a speech.”

    “Any good?”

    “Meh, it’s ok. My round?”

    And here we are five centuries later marvelling at it, a speech that can still rouse Englishmen - any men on earth with a heart - to dreams of valour and greatness

    And yet you’re dealing with a sake hangover while 8000 miles away true patriots are protesting the imprisonment of greatest living Englishman Tommy Robinson.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    SteveS said:

    Interesting thread. I think around 40% of the NHS’s budget is spent on inpatient beds.

    90% of those patients have come through the ED. Even a small reduction in admissions would have a huge impact.

    I think the problem is a lack of capital investment, particularly in IT. Staffing levels are up about 15% compared to pre Covid but they are working in crap,and inefficient conditions

    The NHS don't pay enough to get decent IT people (hint that skill set is doctor level not nurse level in this day and age and they treat anything that isn't medical at nurse level at best). Last week I saw a number of contract Developer jobs in the NHS they were paying £300 max for £600 a day skill sets.

    https://public.digital/pd-insights/blog/2024/10/the-nhs-app-and-single-patient-records is an overview of the issues the NHS has with IT. It's focussed on single source of patient records but covers a number of other areas.
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 182
    Foxy said:

    theProle said:

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    Some money from profits to pay NI. Haha. Hahahaaaahaaaaaa. Hahahahahaaaahaaaaaa.

    One of the reasons payroll taxes are so stupid is that they happen profit or no profit. I would rather they increased Corporation tax - it's a stupid tax too, but at least you have to make a notional profit(*) before they steal it.

    If you are running a business in a start-up or expansion phase, you generally haven't got a profit - but payroll taxes still have to be paid - and the greater they are, the slower your expansion, and the more you have to borrow whilst you try and make a go of things. This is a short-term bad effect from changing rates - in the longer term, it will just mean reduced pay for employees, as it's well known that in a steady state without rule changes 100% of the incidence of payroll taxes falls on employees.

    *one of the real problems for small businesses, particularly those which are expanding, is that it's possible to make a paper profit without making a cash profit, then get clobbered for a corp tax bill without having any actual additional cash in the business with which to pay said bill.
    I am sorry but this just is wrong. Yes on a micro level you might not increase employee pay because of increased payroll costs but on a macro level if the market rate for your employees increases you have a choice to pay the market rate or lose employees/choice of employees. This is just supply and demand in a market economy.
    As we have full employment, indeed Labour shortages in many areas, there is scope for payroll taxes. Indeed by putting up the cost of labour we are likely to drive productivity improvements.
    Agree 100%. As a country we have underinvested in infrastructure and relied on short term fixes. During Brexit we had a one year planning horizon. Then it was Covid - which again had a one year horizon. Then we had PMs who didn’t last more than a year or so.

    I’m hoping we’re now back to multi-year governments.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    Although if one bought the Hunt/Sunak narrative that Conservatives are the party of low tax and decent public services and they could reduce NI to zero, not engage with public sector pay demands and still provide top drawer health and education provision, no wonder one is furious that tax, any tax, is likely to rise.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,714
    Eabhal said:

    biggles said:

    There is no quick fix to healthcare just a slog to get on top of the monster.

    Move to an insureance based system
    Take on the BMA
    Use AI
    Train more doctors and nurses
    Start healthcare at primary school with good food and exercise.

    “Use AI” to do what? People throw this statement around like it’s magic. I wish we’d abolish the use of the term and just talk about LLMs, clever algorithms, etc. If you mean more efficient appointments and something around dispensing prescriptions where it’s really only panel matching, then yes. If you mean getting into diagnosis then please go and read some of the studies. E.g. the AI people thought was diagnosing cancer but was actually just recognising the mark the radiographer noted on the plate as a “bring this to radiologist’s attention I have seen it before” reminder”.
    It's the new "reform" and "boost productivity".
    It's 2024 and NHS can't even implement an IT system so I can change a hospital appt online rather than sit on a phone queue for 40mins.

    So I don't see how AI is going to be implemented.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,641
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    There is no quick fix to healthcare just a slog to get on top of the monster.

    Move to an insureance based system
    Take on the BMA
    Use AI
    Train more doctors and nurses
    Start healthcare at primary school with good food and exercise.

    Also encourage employers to provide private healthcare to their staff.

    The biggest problem is that the NHS has the inertia of a fully-laden oil tanker, so there need to be parallel structures created alongside if there’s to be any noticable improvement in parliamentary term timescales. They’re also close to a single monopoly employer for many professions, so increases in numbers of these will need to come from outside the country.
    Last year 24 000 new doctors were registered with the GMC. 16 000 were overseas graduates, so we already do recruit heavily overseas.
    That’s an impressive number.

    Do we know how many have retired, taken a career break for family reasons, or moved to part time due to the £100k tax nonesense?
    I don't have that data. The GMC only measures registrations, not whole time equivalents. Around 11 000 leave the register each year, so there is a substantial net rise each year. Notably the rise is most marked in "middle grade" posts in hospital medicine, essentially service jobs at sub-consultant level without ongoing training.

    Retirements and emigrations do show, as then doctors are registered, but without a licence to practice. There are about 60 000 of these, compared to 300 000 licensed.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    The "clap for the NHS" needed to be a "take a walk in the park for the NHS" and then build from there.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    This would turbocharge inflation with all imports massively increasing in price. Consumers would switch to domestically produced items where possible, so you’d have to increase tariffs even more to raise enough revenue. It would be like imposing sanctions on yourself.
    Trump is an idiot though - he believes that the increase in tariffs wouldn't impact the prices US consumers pay..

    He also doesn't understand that trade is often a no loser game where both sides are better off thanks to it. Trump only sees winners and losers and insists that losers most very visibly lose..
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,052
    biggles said:

    There is no quick fix to healthcare just a slog to get on top of the monster.

    Move to an insureance based system
    Take on the BMA
    Use AI
    Train more doctors and nurses
    Start healthcare at primary school with good food and exercise.

    “Use AI” to do what? People throw this statement around like it’s magic. I wish we’d abolish the use of the term and just talk about LLMs, clever algorithms, etc. If you mean more efficient appointments and something around dispensing prescriptions where it’s really only label matching, then yes. If you mean getting into diagnosis then please go and read some of the studies. E.g. the AI people thought was diagnosing cancer but was actually just recognising the mark the radiographer noted on the plate as a “bring this to radiologist’s attention I have seen it before” reminder.
    Indeed.

    The other thing is we are already using AI in healthcare, and we’re constantly looking at doing so more. I spent a good chunk of yesterday discussing plans for research and development in this area.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,130

    Taxes were always going to be going up in some way or another this cycle. So I don’t really take issue with tax rises per se. The debate for me is how you do it. Reeves has had a lot of time to work this out, given the length of time between the election and the budget.

    The employer NI feels to me to be a blunt force tool, and there would have been far better ways to go about raising revenue through “work” taxes. Yes there was the (foolish) manifesto commitment, but I think she’d have been far better politically and economically looking at an income tax restructure - raise the personal allowance a bit, get rid of the cliff edges, nudge it up a little at the other end - then you’d be ideally left with a system where the lower paid aren’t touched or even get a little bit more take home, the disincentives are removed, and Labour get their soundbites about the higher earners broadly contributing more. Maybe she’ll surprise us with something on it, but doubtful.

    At the other end the time is nigh for a council tax reband, IMHO. I’m not sure if they’ve got the guts to go for it, but they should.

    I am hoping, given that it appears the employer NI changes won’t affect pension contributions, they stay away from the whole pensions/savings landscape, which I think would be a big mistake.

    Yes, I expect and am OK to pay more tax (and mostly would simply like it to be done in a way that isn't a massive calculation headache at tax return time...). I think the biggest of Labour's pre election errors was how tightly they boxed themselves in on what taxes they can raise. They've effectively set themselves up in a position where it's easy for them to make further errors/bad decisions (in several possible ways, including (a) trying to raise money in counterproductive, regressive or awkward ways (b) not doing the "investment for growth" thing that they need to do and (c) breaking manifesto commitments). I guess we'll know more in a few days.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    edited October 26
    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,036
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If any Englishman here is feeling a bit depressed about our beloved country under this treasonous Labour government, remember: today is Agincourt Day, the Feast of Crispin Crispian

    Which means it’s time to wheel out maybe the greatest ever movie performance of any single Shakespeare soliloquy

    Branagh, doing Crispin

    https://youtu.be/bvFHRNGYfuo?si=__giCifwA-GOs9k7

    TINGLEZ

    As for the traitors that voted in this treasonous Labour government..
    “We few, we happy few, we Band of Brothers”

    FUCKING IMMENSE. And Branagh delivers it so well. And you too can be proud, there were a few Scotsmen in that noble English army at Agincourt
    From Henry V to ... Keir Starmer.

    Score one for the unfashionable hereditary principle anyway.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    The mood of the thread is out of keeping with a thoughtful and measured article at the top of it.

    In the thread there's a loud argument over whether it is better to tax a lot to pay for a large health budget, or to tax somewhat less to create a large deficit in health spending. Both imperfect outcomes. The article suggests reconciling the two positions by reducing the amount of health spending required to reach a given level of outcomes, by increasing the health of the nation by other means.

    This may well be harder than a person would hope, but it merits serious attention. The argument over taxation is rather less consequential.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,641
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    This would turbocharge inflation with all imports massively increasing in price. Consumers would switch to domestically produced items where possible, so you’d have to increase tariffs even more to raise enough revenue. It would be like imposing sanctions on yourself.
    There would indeed be some inflation as the cost of imports rises, but the US is self sufficient in an awful lot of products and still has a wide manufacturing base. Medium term it would see investment in domestic manufacturing, as the sheer size of the domestic market makes this worthwhile for many companies.

    I’m not sure he would be worried about the revenue declining over time, as he plans on significant (and deflationary) reductions in Federal spending - he’s also term limited, so any problems are for the next guy to handle.
    Trump's plans for Social Security (US state pensions) will bankrupt the fund in 6 years, but that conveniently leaves the mess for someone else to sort out.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-social-security.html#

    It seems that right wingers always want their tax cuts now rather than prudent long term finances. I am old enough to remember when they cared about deficits and debts.
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 182
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    There is no quick fix to healthcare just a slog to get on top of the monster.

    Move to an insureance based system
    Take on the BMA
    Use AI
    Train more doctors and nurses
    Start healthcare at primary school with good food and exercise.

    Also encourage employers to provide private healthcare to their staff.

    The biggest problem is that the NHS has the inertia of a fully-laden oil tanker, so there need to be parallel structures created alongside if there’s to be any noticable improvement in parliamentary term timescales. They’re also close to a single monopoly employer for many professions, so increases in numbers of these will need to come from outside the country.
    Last year 24 000 new doctors were registered with the GMC. 16 000 were overseas graduates, so we already do recruit heavily overseas.
    That’s an impressive number.

    Do we know how many have retired, taken a career break for family reasons, or moved to part time due to the £100k tax nonesense?
    I don't have that data. The GMC only measures registrations, not whole time equivalents. Around 11 000 leave the register each year, so there is a substantial net rise each year. Notably the rise is most marked in "middle grade" posts in hospital medicine, essentially service jobs at sub-consultant level without ongoing training.

    Retirements and emigrations do show, as then doctors are registered, but without a licence to practice. There are about 60 000 of these, compared to 300 000 licensed.

    It’s published

    https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMDU0ODdlZWMtYWE3My00NDMwLTk5ODktZTM3N2VjZDQ0NjViIiwidCI6IjM3YzM1NGIyLTg1YjAtNDdmNS1iMjIyLTA3YjQ4ZDc3NGVlMyJ9

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,641
    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If any Englishman here is feeling a bit depressed about our beloved country under this treasonous Labour government, remember: today is Agincourt Day, the Feast of Crispin Crispian

    Which means it’s time to wheel out maybe the greatest ever movie performance of any single Shakespeare soliloquy

    Branagh, doing Crispin

    https://youtu.be/bvFHRNGYfuo?si=__giCifwA-GOs9k7

    TINGLEZ

    As for the traitors that voted in this treasonous Labour government..
    “We few, we happy few, we Band of Brothers”

    FUCKING IMMENSE. And Branagh delivers it so well. And you too can be proud, there were a few Scotsmen in that noble English army at Agincourt
    From Henry V to ... Keir Starmer.

    Score one for the unfashionable hereditary principle anyway.
    You do realise that Shakespeare was writing a hagiography of the Tudors not historical fact, I hope!
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,001
    An interesting and thought-provoking header - thanks @MaxPB

    I prefer the term you use of "unlimited healthcare liability" rather than the one I occasionally here of "unlimited demand" - it may be a pedantic point, but it's rather obvious that demand for elements of the NHS isn't unlimited. My Mum had aortic valve replacement surgery, but I've not been after one, and she'd much rather not need another one. Hip replacements, likewise - I've not been hassling for one just because they're free.

    So, yes, pedantic of me, but my pedant head thinks you've chosen a much better phrase and concept for it, which makes me irrationally pleased.

    I personally think both demand reduction and supply increase are necessary (but actual supply increase, rather than blindly throwing money at it or pointless reorganisations for the sake of it - which is far more of a challenge).

    The Ozempic thing is something that leaves me in two minds - apparently it works by reducing appetite (my ill-informed impression is that it leaves you feeling the way you do after you're rather stuffed), so you actually reduce your intake and then get into the habit of eating less. Which is the ideal outcome. But the entire thing of needing to resort to a medical intervention to get there and my personal dislike of injections weighs against it for me. I don't think it's clear cut - but it may well act to reduce demand long-term. I can be convinced either way on it, I think.

    Early screening to head off problems before they become serious is a very good choice - not just for reducing cost, but in terms of improving healthy life for people themselves (which has a knock on effect of probably improving the entire economy).

    Foxy's ideas (linked above) for tax-exempt saving pots that could be used on both preventative spending by the individual (eg gym memberships) and on private healthcare interventions also looks appealing at reducing the load and providing more individual responsibility.

    In any case, regardless of debating the specific initiatives, the raising of the question and pointing at the need for demand reduction is certainly sound and needed - cross-party. As I said above, I'd prefer to look at (sensible) supply increase as well (of which @Foxy 's suggestion may form a part), but not just blind throwing of money or mindless reorganisation.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986
    pm215 said:

    Taxes were always going to be going up in some way or another this cycle. So I don’t really take issue with tax rises per se. The debate for me is how you do it. Reeves has had a lot of time to work this out, given the length of time between the election and the budget.

    The employer NI feels to me to be a blunt force tool, and there would have been far better ways to go about raising revenue through “work” taxes. Yes there was the (foolish) manifesto commitment, but I think she’d have been far better politically and economically looking at an income tax restructure - raise the personal allowance a bit, get rid of the cliff edges, nudge it up a little at the other end - then you’d be ideally left with a system where the lower paid aren’t touched or even get a little bit more take home, the disincentives are removed, and Labour get their soundbites about the higher earners broadly contributing more. Maybe she’ll surprise us with something on it, but doubtful.

    At the other end the time is nigh for a council tax reband, IMHO. I’m not sure if they’ve got the guts to go for it, but they should.

    I am hoping, given that it appears the employer NI changes won’t affect pension contributions, they stay away from the whole pensions/savings landscape, which I think would be a big mistake.

    Yes, I expect and am OK to pay more tax (and mostly would simply like it to be done in a way that isn't a massive calculation headache at tax return time...). I think the biggest of Labour's pre election errors was how tightly they boxed themselves in on what taxes they can raise. They've effectively set themselves up in a position where it's easy for them to make further errors/bad decisions (in several possible ways, including (a) trying to raise money in counterproductive, regressive or awkward ways (b) not doing the "investment for growth" thing that they need to do and (c) breaking manifesto commitments). I guess we'll know more in a few days.
    A reminder that I almost certainly have the highest effective tax rate on my total income of anyone here (54%) and therefore am best qualified to talk about the impact on tax rises on individuals.

    The rest of you with your piddling 30 or 40-something per cent tax rates are just cheapskates.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,714
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    This would turbocharge inflation with all imports massively increasing in price. Consumers would switch to domestically produced items where possible, so you’d have to increase tariffs even more to raise enough revenue. It would be like imposing sanctions on yourself.
    Trump is an idiot though - he believes that the increase in tariffs wouldn't impact the prices US consumers pay..

    He also doesn't understand that trade is often a no loser game where both sides are better off thanks to it. Trump only sees winners and losers and insists that losers most very visibly lose..
    Well, unless he is the loser of course.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    This would turbocharge inflation with all imports massively increasing in price. Consumers would switch to domestically produced items where possible, so you’d have to increase tariffs even more to raise enough revenue. It would be like imposing sanctions on yourself.
    There would indeed be some inflation as the cost of imports rises, but the US is self sufficient in an awful lot of products and still has a wide manufacturing base. Medium term it would see investment in domestic manufacturing, as the sheer size of the domestic market makes this worthwhile for many companies.

    I’m not sure he would be worried about the revenue declining over time, as he plans on significant (and deflationary) reductions in Federal spending - he’s also term limited, so any problems are for the next guy to handle.
    Trump's plans for Social Security (US state pensions) will bankrupt the fund in 6 years, but that conveniently leaves the mess for someone else to sort out.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-social-security.html#

    It seems that right wingers always want their tax cuts now rather than prudent long term finances. I am old enough to remember when they cared about deficits and debts.
    Of course Trump's personal business model has been to drive an inherited business into the ground and accept a substantial Russian bale out to keep it afloat. A principle that could easily be applied to USA Inc.
  • A social insurance scheme in combination with better health education would sort out the UKs terrible health backlogs..but the left will never accept the 1st option and the right will never accept the 2nd..so ultimately we'll keep muddling along as we are..🥴
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,714

    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    A social insurance scheme in combination with better health education would sort out the UKs terrible health backlogs..but the left will never accept the 1st option and the right will never accept the 2nd..so ultimately we'll keep muddling along as we are..🥴

    We could call option one "National Insurance"!
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051
    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    On Employers NI - it's the politically easiest way to increase taxes by a substantial amount. My naive interpretation of the promise not to increase income tax, NI or VAT had precluded it as an option, but I don't think the government are going to suffer politically for dodging that with the small print over "working people".

    It is, obviously, a little bit disheartening to see a government - once again - do what is politically expedient, rather than something more ideal for the economy, but they are politicians, and they will want to be re-elected. There are worse things they could have chosen to do.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    I'm surprised he's selling any, although Winter is drawing in and kiln- dried firewood is ludicrously expensive.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    edited October 26

    On Employers NI - it's the politically easiest way to increase taxes by a substantial amount. My naive interpretation of the promise not to increase income tax, NI or VAT had precluded it as an option, but I don't think the government are going to suffer politically for dodging that with the small print over "working people".

    It is, obviously, a little bit disheartening to see a government - once again - do what is politically expedient, rather than something more ideal for the economy, but they are politicians, and they will want to be re-elected. There are worse things they could have chosen to do.

    Relative to the rest of Europe our employer taxes are lower.

    However it creates a whole set of problems elsewhere as it will mean low paid workers who aren't on the minimum wage are unlikely to see a pay increase next year as the first 2% has just been sent to the Government... Add on any increase to the minimum wage and the first 3% for those above the minimum wage is probably going to the Government or those who are on the minimum wage..

    To be frank - I'm expecting to be wholly disappointed with this budget - there are a whole set of things that can only be implemented early on (changes to Council tax, changes to VAT registration levels) and I doubt any of the straws have been grasped to kick off the work required).
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986

    On Employers NI - it's the politically easiest way to increase taxes by a substantial amount. My naive interpretation of the promise not to increase income tax, NI or VAT had precluded it as an option, but I don't think the government are going to suffer politically for dodging that with the small print over "working people".

    It is, obviously, a little bit disheartening to see a government - once again - do what is politically expedient, rather than something more ideal for the economy, but they are politicians, and they will want to be re-elected. There are worse things they could have chosen to do.

    Of course the prospect of employers NI rises as a manifesto-proof route to tax revenues was first flagged back in early September by some tax expert from one of the big 4:

    https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/what-does-the-city-fear-most-from-rachel-reevess-budget-08q0nq5gf
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,717
    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If any Englishman here is feeling a bit depressed about our beloved country under this treasonous Labour government, remember: today is Agincourt Day, the Feast of Crispin Crispian

    Which means it’s time to wheel out maybe the greatest ever movie performance of any single Shakespeare soliloquy

    Branagh, doing Crispin

    https://youtu.be/bvFHRNGYfuo?si=__giCifwA-GOs9k7

    TINGLEZ

    As for the traitors that voted in this treasonous Labour government..
    “We few, we happy few, we Band of Brothers”

    FUCKING IMMENSE. And Branagh delivers it so well. And you too can be proud, there were a few Scotsmen in that noble English army at Agincourt
    From Henry V to ... Keir Starmer.

    Score one for the unfashionable hereditary principle anyway.
    Echos of
    " from Stalin to ... Mr Bean"

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,904

    Interesting piece by Max, I'd like to see real food cooking taught in all schools, national cooking/cookery campaigns, and more visits to farmers/farms at all levels of education.

    One thing: I get leaflets through the door every other week from Dominos and PapaJohns, both of which I hate. Yes, they can post what they like - and no doubt this is part of an aggressive marketing campaign - but things like this combined with JustEat and Deliveroo make it very very easy to eat shit.

    How do we make it easier to eat well?

    Do you know who reduced the teaching of cooking in schools in the late 1980s? Margaret Thatcher. Listen to https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00y50qm
    Hey, I've got some good news for you: she left office over 33 years ago.
    Thatcher & Co killed Home Economics some 40 years ago. Centralised control of the school curriculum has meant that it has stayed dead. Thatcher is guilty.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,793


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    I'm surprised he's selling any, although Winter is drawing in and kiln- dried firewood is ludicrously expensive.
    You would normally expect the first week of sales of a heavily promoted book to be much greater than the second and subsequent weeks. I don't know whether a 62% drop is less or more than, say, Tony Blair or Liz Truss.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,036
    On topic, everybody dies from something. If we increase survival rates for diabetes and lung cancer, the survivors may well die of something even more expensive a few years later, and will probably need lots of expensive end of life care in the meantime.

    Looking at it from the demand side is probably wrong. We as a society should stop pretending that health care is unlimited and freely available, work out how much we can afford to spend as a share of national income (say the OECD average excluding the US) then work out how best to allocate it to get the most cost-effective years of healthy life remaining. And anything more than that, people (mostly the old) should be required to fund themselves, at least for non-palliative care.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    This would turbocharge inflation with all imports massively increasing in price. Consumers would switch to domestically produced items where possible, so you’d have to increase tariffs even more to raise enough revenue. It would be like imposing sanctions on yourself.
    There would indeed be some inflation as the cost of imports rises, but the US is self sufficient in an awful lot of products and still has a wide manufacturing base. Medium term it would see investment in domestic manufacturing, as the sheer size of the domestic market makes this worthwhile for many companies.

    I’m not sure he would be worried about the revenue declining over time, as he plans on significant (and deflationary) reductions in Federal spending - he’s also term limited, so any problems are for the next guy to handle.
    Trump's plans for Social Security (US state pensions) will bankrupt the fund in 6 years, but that conveniently leaves the mess for someone else to sort out.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-social-security.html#

    It seems that right wingers always want their tax cuts now rather than prudent long term finances. I am old enough to remember when they cared about deficits and debts.
    They only care about that when there’s a Dem in the White House .
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,421

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    I do recall some sneering from our Labour-supporting posters about Boris' 'Fuck business' comments.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,277


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    How does that compare with regular week two book sales?

    I note they have to say, despite being down 62% the book still "held on" to number one slot?

    So, two weeks at number one for Boris?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    Cookie said:


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    I'm surprised he's selling any, although Winter is drawing in and kiln- dried firewood is ludicrously expensive.
    You would normally expect the first week of sales of a heavily promoted book to be much greater than the second and subsequent weeks. I don't know whether a 62% drop is less or more than, say, Tony Blair or Liz Truss.
    Another 38% of the first week's sales sounds pretty decent to me. You'd assume it would tail off further for the third and subsequent weeks, but the Guardian are showing that they know their audience with that headline.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,052
    Fishing said:

    On topic, everybody dies from something. If we increase survival rates for diabetes and lung cancer, the survivors may well die of something even more expensive a few years later, and will probably need lots of expensive end of life care in the meantime.

    Looking at it from the demand side is probably wrong. We as a society should stop pretending that health care is unlimited and freely available, work out how much we can afford to spend as a share of national income (say the OECD average excluding the US) then work out how best to allocate it to get the most cost-effective years of healthy life remaining. And anything more than that, people (mostly the old) should be required to fund themselves, at least for non-palliative care.

    We don’t pretend healthcare is unlimited. NICE advises on what drugs and other interventions are affordable.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,033
    edited October 26

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    Good morning

    That is what happens when you are elected to govern

    It is noticeable how journalists, who were aggressively against Johnson, Truss and the conservatives, have switched hats and turned their fire on Starmer and Labour, no more so than Burley and Rigby on Sky

    Starmer and Reeves have not helped themselves as they struggle to come to terms with their responsibilities and certainly the doom and gloom together with the vacuum created waiting for the Autumn Statement has been very negative

    You can argue which taxes should go up, but ultimately the error they made was to rule out increases in income tax, vat and NI which do the heavy lifting in the economy

    As far as the NHS is concerned an excellent header by @MaxPB but no matter how partisan one is, you cannot ignore the desperate state of the NHS in Wales and Scotland run by Labour and SNP respectively

    I have had extensive engagement with the Wales NHS over the last year involving three consultants, a cardiologist, haematologist and a vascular surgeon and throughout everything including pacemaker operation in February I have only once received a telephone call from the doctor in our medical practice

    All investigations involved nurses and practice nurses and others for blood tests, ECGs, ultrasounds, and X rays and the rest with the consultants. It really is the case I did not need the practice doctors throughout and even today as I have lifetime monitoring

    I know many are upset when labour come under fire but that is politics, they are the government and it will continue throughout their term of office
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    edited October 26
    In news that will surprise no one .

    GOP House member Andy Harris says that North Carolina should just award the win to Trump and give him the electoral votes . This because of the hurricane effected areas having more problem voting. Ignoring that the largest population centre there is a Dem stronghold .

    Added to this attempt to steal the election another pro Trump activist says they should do the same where there are other GOP state legislatures in Arizona , Georgia , Wisconsin , New Hampshire and Nebraska .

    This was a step too far for Harris who just wants to steal North Carolina and criticized the activist Raiklin .

    The GOP deserve to be destroyed but sadly won’t !

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    Yes. This is a standard sales curve

    Sales peak in the first week or two then fall away rapidly

    https://www.todayschapter.com/the-indie-author-sales-curve/

    Are you guys all fucking morons or what
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,218
    edited October 26
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    nico679 said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    4m views in four hours, just on Youtube, for Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY

    He has also invited Kamala Harris to sit down with him.

    Does this interview win Trump the Presidency?
    Gets Rogan more attention which he thrives on as does Trump. Two egomanics together.

    Well yeah OK, but what do we think to this as a campaign tactic just over a week out from polling day?

    It's an interesting choice from Team Trump in what I think has been a MUCH better campaign compared to either 2016 or 2020.
    I imagine it was planned a long time ago. A clever move. Would you say Rogans followers are most likely to be Trump than Harris supporters?
    If it was organised a while ago, everyone involved kept very quiet until a few days back. Monday was when the speculation started.

    Rogan’s audience skews male and rural, so theoretically more likely to be Trump votes than Harris voters.

    He does get something totally outrageous like 100m views and downloads, by far the most popular podcast out there. This one will likely set records for a single podcast episode, half the country will have watched it before the election.
    Interesting. I agree with you about the profile of his audience.
    It does feel like the Trump team masterplanned this last few weeks whereas Kamala has been winging it since the kamalagasm

    Nonetheless people are writing off the Dems far too easily. An awful lot of Americans fear and despise Donald Trump and would vote for chairman Mao in preference to him
    Or even Donald Duck.
    I can't see how Trump being on Rogan changes a single vote frankly. Although it may help with GOTV.
    That’s an odd perspective. Over 3hrs he talks gently, a bit rambly and (expertly) gives the impression of being a slightly inappropriate uncle. Rather than Hitler. In an historically close election from a polls perspective, it might prove to be quite an important moment.
    Maybe Trumps suggestion he’d get rid of income taxes might swing a few votes for the economically illiterate . Rogan failed to ask him how the government would fund things .
    His plan AIUI is to increase tarrifs on imports, and reduce Federal income taxes by a similar amount, such that most Americans would pay no Federal income taxes at all.
    This would turbocharge inflation with all imports massively increasing in price. Consumers would switch to domestically produced items where possible, so you’d have to increase tariffs even more to raise enough revenue. It would be like imposing sanctions on yourself.
    There would indeed be some inflation as the cost of imports rises, but the US is self sufficient in an awful lot of products and still has a wide manufacturing base. Medium term it would see investment in domestic manufacturing, as the sheer size of the domestic market makes this worthwhile for many companies.

    I’m not sure he would be worried about the revenue declining over time, as he plans on significant (and deflationary) reductions in Federal spending - he’s also term limited, so any problems are for the next guy to handle.
    Trump's plans for Social Security (US state pensions) will bankrupt the fund in 6 years, but that conveniently leaves the mess for someone else to sort out.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-social-security.html#

    It seems that right wingers always want their tax cuts now rather than prudent long term finances. I am old enough to remember when they cared about deficits and debts.
    Dunno about "always". The traditional Conservative approach has always been "low taxes and sound money". And, if push came to shove, taxes went up to avoid debauching the Treasury. Howe did it, Clarke did it, Osborne did it. Question how well they did it, but they did it. Heck, even Sunak did it in his early days.

    And that's the conservative thing to do- try to avoid leaving too much mess for the next generation. (Incidentally, interesting lack of object permanence shown by some of our friends on the right today- just because someone has taken the tea towels off the unspeakable mess doesn't mean that they generated the mess.)

    The fiscal plans Hunt left were unsound money- everyone who knows about such things said so. If some large, unspecified, presumably politically impossible spending cuts happened in the future, government borrowing wouldn't get too bad. It was the domestic equivalent of treating a new credit card as a pay rise.

    Thanks Hunt. Thunt.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986
    edited October 26

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    I do recall some sneering from our Labour-supporting posters about Boris' 'Fuck business' comments.
    This is a good example of the Spider-Man circle of hypocrisy accusation that social media has made so popular.

    Two sides both do similar things that are open to criticism. Each side loudly defends when they do it, and loudly critiques when the others do. This allows both sides to accuse the other of hypocrisy. The winner is whoever gets in first with the accusation.

    So, today: a non-Tory defends tax rises saying tough, business will have to foot the bill. You point out the hypocrisy (“sneering”) about fuck business. You win that exchange.

    Non Tory could instead have got the rhetorical win if they’d fingered the hypocrisy first, e.g. “I remember PB Tories sneeringly dismissing business concerns over Brexit and cheering Johnson’s fuck business.”

    It’s a phenomenon that makes up a decent proportion of all online political debate, this Spider-Man circle. Classic example of first mover advantage.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    edited October 26
    "It completely absolves people of personal responsibility for their own health. Instead it suggests that we, the public, are too stupid or too lazy to improve our health and we just need to injected with drugs."

    This is not what the science says at all. Just hyperbole.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ozempic-quiets-food-noise-in-the-brain-but-how/

    The drugs approach suggests we can treat the chemical imbalance that many people have, that leads to obesity (in an environment of easy access to food and modern constant marketing by manufacturers of ultra processed food).

    Nothing to do with stupidity or laziness, and obesity can rarely be treated by exercise, diet is very dominant.

    These drugs are the answer, and also help with other conditions including dementia, diabetes and heart disease.
    They have been used for diabetes for a long time so we also have a good profile of long term side effects and risks,which exist of course and are not insignificant.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,956
    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    If any Englishman here is feeling a bit depressed about our beloved country under this treasonous Labour government, remember: today is Agincourt Day, the Feast of Crispin Crispian

    Which means it’s time to wheel out maybe the greatest ever movie performance of any single Shakespeare soliloquy

    Branagh, doing Crispin

    https://youtu.be/bvFHRNGYfuo?si=__giCifwA-GOs9k7

    TINGLEZ

    As for the traitors that voted in this treasonous Labour government..
    “We few, we happy few, we Band of Brothers”

    FUCKING IMMENSE. And Branagh delivers it so well. And you too can be proud, there were a few Scotsmen in that noble English army at Agincourt
    From Henry V to ... Keir Starmer.

    Score one for the unfashionable hereditary principle anyway.
    You do realise that Shakespeare was writing a hagiography of the Tudors not historical fact, I hope!
    As another great work of art said, 'This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend'.
  • Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    The irony of this is if the Scots couple win in Court in January, this years WFP will have to be paid retrospectively to all this years pensioners
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986

    "It completely absolves people of personal responsibility for their own health. Instead it suggests that we, the public, are too stupid or too lazy to improve our health and we just need to injected with drugs."

    This is not what the science says at all. Just hyperbole.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ozempic-quiets-food-noise-in-the-brain-but-how/

    The drugs approach suggests we can treat the chemical imbalance that many people have, that leads to obesity (in an environment of easy access to food and modern constant marketing by manufacturers of ultra processed food).

    Nothing to do with stupidity or laziness, and obesity can rarely be treated by exercise, diet is very dominant.

    These drugs are the answer, and also help with other conditions including dementia, diabetes and heart disease.
    They have been used for diabetes for a long time so we also have a good profile of long term side effects and risks,which exist of course and are not insignificant.

    Moral approaches to public health never work. Utilitarian ones do.
  • Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    Why do 70% of pensioners have no housing costs

    All properties need maintenance and sometimes expensive repairs and professional help in maintenence and gardening when they are unable to do so through ageing

    Also they have council tax to pay
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    TimS said:

    "It completely absolves people of personal responsibility for their own health. Instead it suggests that we, the public, are too stupid or too lazy to improve our health and we just need to injected with drugs."

    This is not what the science says at all. Just hyperbole.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ozempic-quiets-food-noise-in-the-brain-but-how/

    The drugs approach suggests we can treat the chemical imbalance that many people have, that leads to obesity (in an environment of easy access to food and modern constant marketing by manufacturers of ultra processed food).

    Nothing to do with stupidity or laziness, and obesity can rarely be treated by exercise, diet is very dominant.

    These drugs are the answer, and also help with other conditions including dementia, diabetes and heart disease.
    They have been used for diabetes for a long time so we also have a good profile of long term side effects and risks,which exist of course and are not insignificant.

    Moral approaches to public health never work. Utilitarian ones do.
    Utilitarian healthcare:

    Harvest the organs from one healthy person to give transplants and save the lives of three others.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    Yes - because the worst hit people losing the WFP are those with an income between £13-15,000 but there is no easy way to identify them so the fix is not bother identifying them and accepting the loss.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    The irony of this is if the Scots couple win in Court in January, this years WFP will have to be paid retrospectively to all this years pensioners
    How is that ironic?

    If pensioners on household income equivalent to £37,000* can successfully challenge the government on equalities grounds, it's hard to describe just how monumentally fucked the country is.

    (Though it would probably see the binning of all equalities legislation, which would be ironic)

    *Assuming that the Fannings have no housing costs and no private pension income
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Leon said:


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    Yes. This is a standard sales curve

    Sales peak in the first week or two then fall away rapidly

    https://www.todayschapter.com/the-indie-author-sales-curve/

    Are you guys all fucking morons or what
    PS @rottenborough apologies for gratuitous swearing at you. I blame the pre beer 6pm mood dip

    My point is correct - Boris’ bestselling memoir is experiencing a classic sales curve. His publishers will be delighted it has stayed number one for another week

    But I didn’t have to make this point with such a snarl
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,348
    nico679 said:

    In news that will surprise no one .

    GOP House member Andy Harris says that North Carolina should just award the win to Trump and give him the electoral votes . This because of the hurricane effected areas having more problem voting. Ignoring that the largest population centre there is a Dem stronghold .

    Added to this attempt to steal the election another pro Trump activist says they should do the same where there are other GOP state legislatures in Arizona , Georgia , Wisconsin , New Hampshire and Nebraska .

    This was a step too far for Harris who just wants to steal North Carolina and criticized the activist Raiklin .

    The GOP deserve to be destroyed but sadly won’t !

    Is an election even necessary? GOP State Legislatures could simply declare that Trump is the winner.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,714
    Leon said:

    Leon said:


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    Yes. This is a standard sales curve

    Sales peak in the first week or two then fall away rapidly

    https://www.todayschapter.com/the-indie-author-sales-curve/

    Are you guys all fucking morons or what
    PS @rottenborough apologies for gratuitous swearing at you. I blame the pre beer 6pm mood dip

    My point is correct - Boris’ bestselling memoir is experiencing a classic sales curve. His publishers will be delighted it has stayed number one for another week

    But I didn’t have to make this point with such a snarl
    No worries. I was about to post - 'don't shoot the messenger'.

    I was merely passing on the obvious delight over at the Guardian at finding his sales slumping!!

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    Leon said:

    Leon said:


    Sales of Boris Johnson’s memoir slump by 62% in second week

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/24/boris-johnson-memoir-unleashed-sales

    Yes. This is a standard sales curve

    Sales peak in the first week or two then fall away rapidly

    https://www.todayschapter.com/the-indie-author-sales-curve/

    Are you guys all fucking morons or what
    PS @rottenborough apologies for gratuitous swearing at you. I blame the pre beer 6pm mood dip

    My point is correct - Boris’ bestselling memoir is experiencing a classic sales curve. His publishers will be delighted it has stayed number one for another week

    But I didn’t have to make this point with such a snarl
    His publisher is Rupert Murdoch. He will be delighted with the deal as it reminds other prime ministers and national leaders globally that if they want easy money post office, be nice to Uncle Rupert. He won't give a monkeys about the sales either way.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    edited October 26
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    Yes - because the worst hit people losing the WFP are those with an income between £13-15,000 but there is no easy way to identify them so the fix is not bother identifying them and accepting the loss.

    A pensioner on £13,000 still has an income worth £58,000, compared with the scenario I describe above.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,717
    Sean_F said:

    nico679 said:

    In news that will surprise no one .

    GOP House member Andy Harris says that North Carolina should just award the win to Trump and give him the electoral votes . This because of the hurricane effected areas having more problem voting. Ignoring that the largest population centre there is a Dem stronghold .

    Added to this attempt to steal the election another pro Trump activist says they should do the same where there are other GOP state legislatures in Arizona , Georgia , Wisconsin , New Hampshire and Nebraska .

    This was a step too far for Harris who just wants to steal North Carolina and criticized the activist Raiklin .

    The GOP deserve to be destroyed but sadly won’t !

    Is an election even necessary? GOP State Legislatures could simply declare that Trump is the winner.
    Trump it is, winner or whiner

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,250
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    The irony of this is if the Scots couple win in Court in January, this years WFP will have to be paid retrospectively to all this years pensioners
    How is that ironic?

    If pensioners on household income equivalent to £37,000* can successfully challenge the government on equalities grounds, it's hard to describe just how monumentally fucked the country is.

    (Though it would probably see the binning of all equalities legislation, which would be ironic)

    *Assuming that the Fannings have no housing costs and no private pension income
    There is an agenda, by some people, to use equalities law to take control of large areas of government spending and hand it to the courts.

    See the attempts to get the Supreme Court to take control of any change in state pensions or benefits in the early years of the coalition. Involved the Fox Killer, IIRC.

  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    edited October 26
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    Yes - because the worst hit people losing the WFP are those with an income between £13-15,000 but there is no easy way to identify them so the fix is not bother identifying them and accepting the loss.

    A pensioner on £13,000 still has an income worth £58,000, compared with the scenario I describe above.
    How does a pensioer on £13000 a year have an income worth £58,000 - I'm either thick or you are making assumptions that should be easy to refute..

    And if you saying housing costs - I'm but just because they paid off their mortgage doesn't allow you to include the mortgage of others because they didn't.

    For reference I paid my first mortgage off in full aged 32..
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    ydoethur said:

    An interesting article. The last paragraph missed one obvious possibility though - make membership of sporting clubs (gyms, swimming pools, etc) tax deductible as long as you can demonstrate you've used them twelve times in a year. And exempt them from VAT, to make them cheaper to operate.

    So I had a look into this and it doesn't incentivise people who weren't already minded to get gym membership. Cost isn't necessarily the biggest barrier so reducing it won't increase demand very much. Any tax deductions here end up being a discount for the people who already have gym membership and with cheap gyms like PureGym available all over the country it's not as though getting 20% off £35 per month is going to make the difference between someone taking up membership or not, if they're unwilling at £35 per month they're probably still unwilling for free.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,413
    Nigelb said:

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    Hilarious post, and tellingly defensive.
    A tellingly defensive reply, too.
    Er, no.

    I find how Labour supporters like @Gallowgate @Mexicanpete @bondegezou and @Anabobazina can't handle the sheer awfulness and incompetence of the new administration quite amusing.

    There are Santa's little helpers, like you and Foxy too, but you don't have quite the same histrionics that they do, even though you both get off on Wokery, Self-Flagellation and Reparations.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,413

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    It's any criticism of Labour that annoys you.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,589

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    Because it will not be coming from profits,

    It will come from future pay rises.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,586
    edited October 26
    Petrol prices, adjusted for inflation, since 1983:

    http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html

    (Google could not find me a nice inflation-adjusted graph, so thank God for old-fashioned personal webpages curated by oddballs.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    Last night’s Real Time with Bill Maher. Plenty of election-related humour.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tmi460-GjE

    Also his first interview is a 1-1 sit down with Megyn Kelly.

    I could honestly listen to these two talk for hours, they’re both genuinely intelligent, obviously on different sides and voting different ways but both towards the centre, can often find a susprising amount on which they agree.

    An antidote to the usual firey shouting match and ‘gotchya’ questioning that passes for ‘debate’ in the US media.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    An interesting article. The last paragraph missed one obvious possibility though - make membership of sporting clubs (gyms, swimming pools, etc) tax deductible as long as you can demonstrate you've used them twelve times in a year. And exempt them from VAT, to make them cheaper to operate.

    So I had a look into this and it doesn't incentivise people who weren't already minded to get gym membership. Cost isn't necessarily the biggest barrier so reducing it won't increase demand very much. Any tax deductions here end up being a discount for the people who already have gym membership and with cheap gyms like PureGym available all over the country it's not as though getting 20% off £35 per month is going to make the difference between someone taking up membership or not, if they're unwilling at £35 per month they're probably still unwilling for free.
    £35 a month? Puregym in Durham is £18
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,413
    Foxy said:

    theProle said:

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    Some money from profits to pay NI. Haha. Hahahaaaahaaaaaa. Hahahahahaaaahaaaaaa.

    One of the reasons payroll taxes are so stupid is that they happen profit or no profit. I would rather they increased Corporation tax - it's a stupid tax too, but at least you have to make a notional profit(*) before they steal it.

    If you are running a business in a start-up or expansion phase, you generally haven't got a profit - but payroll taxes still have to be paid - and the greater they are, the slower your expansion, and the more you have to borrow whilst you try and make a go of things. This is a short-term bad effect from changing rates - in the longer term, it will just mean reduced pay for employees, as it's well known that in a steady state without rule changes 100% of the incidence of payroll taxes falls on employees.

    *one of the real problems for small businesses, particularly those which are expanding, is that it's possible to make a paper profit without making a cash profit, then get clobbered for a corp tax bill without having any actual additional cash in the business with which to pay said bill.
    I am sorry but this just is wrong. Yes on a micro level you might not increase employee pay because of increased payroll costs but on a macro level if the market rate for your employees increases you have a choice to pay the market rate or lose employees/choice of employees. This is just supply and demand in a market economy.
    As we have full employment, indeed Labour shortages in many areas, there is scope for payroll taxes. Indeed by putting up the cost of labour we are likely to drive productivity improvements.
    Payroll taxes that you in the NHS won't have to pay, and nor will you need to deliver any productivity improvements, whilst we in the private sector will to fund your pay increases and generous pensions.

    This is simply confirmation bias at work.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    edited October 26
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    Yes - because the worst hit people losing the WFP are those with an income between £13-15,000 but there is no easy way to identify them so the fix is not bother identifying them and accepting the loss.

    A pensioner on £13,000 still has an income worth £58,000, compared with the scenario I describe above.
    How does someone on £13000 have an income worth £58,000 - I'm either thick or you are making assumptions that should be easy to refute..
    My scenario above included two teenage children and a single parent living in rented accomodation, with a single pensioner living in a home they own outright. The standard tool for comparing household incomes is equivlisation; in this case an adult is worth 1 and a teenage child is worth 0.5.

    13,000 = 12,915 after tax.
    Equivalised income = 12,915 *2 = 25,830
    Rental costs = 1,500 PCM (I'm just plucking a number here)
    Gross pay required = 43,830
    Net salary = 57,366
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,413

    In ‘Jess Phillips is a fckng idiot who gets carried away with the sound of her own voice’ news.

    https://x.com/stevepowers_/status/1849865063160742357?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    I think she makes a very good point.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    Interesting piece by Max, I'd like to see real food cooking taught in all schools, national cooking/cookery campaigns, and more visits to farmers/farms at all levels of education.

    One thing: I get leaflets through the door every other week from Dominos and PapaJohns, both of which I hate. Yes, they can post what they like - and no doubt this is part of an aggressive marketing campaign - but things like this combined with JustEat and Deliveroo make it very very easy to eat shit.

    How do we make it easier to eat well?

    And this is where the nannying definitely comes in, it might be dispiriting for people like us to contemplate advertising and leafleting bans for unhealthy foods and takeaways but the situation is only getting worse.

    On healthy eating, it is already easy to do so, people just don't know how. I actually think we don't need to tackle cooking at school age, we need to do it for parents in their 30s and 40s who never learned. Make it part of eligibility for benefits to attend mandatory cooking classes, give people basic cooking equipment when they sign on and, frankly, be more intrusive about their spending. As I said any solution on healthy eating is going to feel like and be nannying, I think we need to get on board with this or there is no end to the tax rises, the £20bn salvo Labour are planning right now will look like child's play when we win in 2029 if action isn't taken.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    eek said:

    biggles said:

    The funny thing is that my views on National Insurance are well known and that my preference would be to abolish it entirely and increase income and capital gains tax but there will always be winners and losers in regard to tax policy but it’s the constant bleating about everything Labour are trying to do to stabilise the country’s finances which annoys me.

    I have never understood why NI hasn’t at least been made progressive. Continue to charge me full rate over £50k (but drop the full rate) or like you say, merge with IC and rationalise rates. Employee’s NI is just silly.
    Employees NI is paid weekly/monthly not annually.

    Would you want to see 8% of your annual bonus disappearing because they paid it in a single week - at the moment Ni on your bonus is probably taken at 2%...
    That’s why the best solution is a merger with IC and an honest decision about real tax rates. Those of us on decent salaries (not even necessarily “good” salaries) mostly accept a higher rate on the higher amounts; and frankly we pay most the tax paid in this country. But there is such a bonkers system of assorted allowances and let-offs that can’t be efficient. See also the self employed and their “voluntary” contributions, which they mostly pay out of fear and not quite understanding what happens if they don’t.
    Were I chancellor - the immediate change I would be making from April 6th is

    Basic rate income tax up to 24%
    Employee NI down to 5%

    With an explicit statement that Income tax would be rising to 25% over the next few years while Employee NI would be reduced to 4%...

    I would also reintroduce the WFA because that would reduce the impact on pensioners so only those receiving more than £8,000 in private pensions were worse off..

    So you'd reintroduce WFP for all pensioners up to an income of £19,500?

    The problem with that is it does not take into account 70% of pensioners have no housing costs. In comparison to a single parent, renting a flat with two teenage children, that income is equivalent to a salary of £77,000, or more than double the median salary.
    Yes - because the worst hit people losing the WFP are those with an income between £13-15,000 but there is no easy way to identify them so the fix is not bother identifying them and accepting the loss.

    A pensioner on £13,000 still has an income worth £58,000, compared with the scenario I describe above.
    How does someone on £13000 have an income worth £58,000 - I'm either thick or you are making assumptions that should be easy to refute..
    My scenario above included two teenage children and a single parent living in rented accomodation, with a single pensioner living in a home they own outright. The standard tool for comparing household incomes is equalisation; in this case an adult is worth 1 and a teenage child is worth 0.5.

    13,000 = 12,915 after tax.
    Equivalised income = 12,915 *2 = 25,830
    Rental costs = 1,500 PCM (I'm just plucking a number here)
    Gross pay required = 43,830
    Net salary = 57,366
    So you are not looking at income but costs of living for a person who may have paid their house off compared to a person living in private rented accommodation.

    That isn't even comparing Apples with Oranges it's comparing apples with Concorde jets...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,319

    PB tories hate every single tax increase but yet their lads left public finances in dire straits. Fuck off, you broke it. The money has to come from somewhere and if business owners have to take some money from profits to pay NI then so what. Deal with it.

    You won't be so cheery when it puts you on the dole sunshine, it will be workers paying for it if indeed it makes money as employers are likely to just draw a line at break even and dump some workers. Certainly at bottom end , will kill wage rises.
  • ClarkClark Posts: 41
    MaxPB said:

    Interesting piece by Max, I'd like to see real food cooking taught in all schools, national cooking/cookery campaigns, and more visits to farmers/farms at all levels of education.

    One thing: I get leaflets through the door every other week from Dominos and PapaJohns, both of which I hate. Yes, they can post what they like - and no doubt this is part of an aggressive marketing campaign - but things like this combined with JustEat and Deliveroo make it very very easy to eat shit.

    How do we make it easier to eat well?

    And this is where the nannying definitely comes in, it might be dispiriting for people like us to contemplate advertising and leafleting bans for unhealthy foods and takeaways but the situation is only getting worse.

    On healthy eating, it is already easy to do so, people just don't know how. I actually think we don't need to tackle cooking at school age, we need to do it for parents in their 30s and 40s who never learned. Make it part of eligibility for benefits to attend mandatory cooking classes, give people basic cooking equipment when they sign on and, frankly, be more intrusive about their spending. As I said any solution on healthy eating is going to feel like and be nannying, I think we need to get on board with this or there is no end to the tax rises, the £20bn salvo Labour are planning right now will look like child's play when we win in 2029 if action isn't taken.
    A lot of the problem to be honest is both parents now working so there is a temptation at the end of the day just to order takeaways.
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 182

    Fishing said:

    On topic, everybody dies from something. If we increase survival rates for diabetes and lung cancer, the survivors may well die of something even more expensive a few years later, and will probably need lots of expensive end of life care in the meantime.

    Looking at it from the demand side is probably wrong. We as a society should stop pretending that health care is unlimited and freely available, work out how much we can afford to spend as a share of national income (say the OECD average excluding the US) then work out how best to allocate it to get the most cost-effective years of healthy life remaining. And anything more than that, people (mostly the old) should be required to fund themselves, at least for non-palliative care.

    We don’t pretend healthcare is unlimited. NICE advises on what drugs and other interventions are affordable.
    Mainly drugs though. NICE doesn’t really opine on whether patients should have scans, tests, be admitted to a bed etc.

This discussion has been closed.