"In 2024, EVs must make up 22% of a carmaker's car sales, and 10% of van sales. This target is set to rise. Firms failing to meet these targets face a £15,000 fine per sale."
That is, of course, a continuation of the previous government's stupid decision.
If European governments had started of with the explicit intention of turning the whole car market into Chinese white goods, it’s different to see anything they’d have done differently than what has actually been done.
The Cult of Outsourcing - “Running a battery factory looks jolly difficult and expensive. Just buy some of those Chinese chaps. Negotiating a price for a product I don’t understand? That’s Real Work (TM) with lots of document in written in legalese, instead of that science nonsense.”
Cult of Onshoring - get those clever Chinese chaps to build a plant here, and learn from them.
That's what they did with us a quarter of a century back.
Are the UK government insisting on British ‘local partners’ for the Chinese companies investing in Britain, and are they intending to steal the Chinese IP and have the factory run ‘ghost’ shifts at the weekends?
There's no reason we shouldn't insist on local partners. That seems to be the approach Europe is starting to take.
Without that, then no deal.
Steady on, this is Sir Britain-hater we're talking about.
I've no great confidence that this government will pursue such deals, but they certainly should.
For the last forty years our being "open to investment" has largely meant selling off assets to overseas buyers, who often simply extract what they can and jettison the detritus.
It's not a party political issue - rather how do we best ensure our economic interests. Our governments have not done a great job of that for decades.
That's true. But would taking a long term view and enacting policies (assuming we know what they are) which might pay off in solid sustainable growth (as opposed to things like selling off assets and letting the City go nuts) be rewarded electorally, do you think?
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
The strong urge to have a nap shortly after eating it?
The unification of North America from the arctic to the canal makes a lot of sense.
In what respect ?
It sounds a very similar argument to that advanced by a Mr Putin.
I'm inclined to agree on that one. IMO it will take the USA basically 18C Governance system, with it's great strengths but also it's potentially fatal weaknesses, and impose it on more civilised countries like Canada, and arguably Mexico and some other Central American countries.
I had a little read around Panama when this came up, and their PPP GDP is in the $40k ballpark. Mexico is ~$25k. USA is ~$84k. Canada is ~$63k (same as UK).
$40k PPP GDP is getting close to being on a par with much of Eastern Europe which has joined the EU eg Romania at $47k. In Europe afaics there is a sharp dividing line between EU and not-yet-EU.
Poorer and middle income countries catching up has been happening before our eyes for 3 or 4 decades. IMO where it goes from here depends on political, rule of law and stability, and external policies in the countries which have made the best progress.
The USA will wake up one day sometime in the next 25 years, and find it has a continent of essentially near-equals on it's doorstep quite capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to reject the Monroe Doctrine. How it decides to behave will give us a measure of the USA.
Stats like murder rate, road safety, emissions, and a lot of others, may be the ones to watch next. I don't think the Usonian "Wild West" model will compete in the very long term.
In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following: • From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him. • In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl. • During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions. • Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts. • In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent. • Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct. • Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House.
And this guy, Trump wanted to be his Attorney General.
It's as if instead of Jefferson and Lincoln (who no doubt had their complications) being the abiding sprits of the American journey, Roy Cohn (who had a close relationship with Trump) has taken on the mantle. We have entered a time of public figures having no redeeming featutres whatsoever.
The geographically-challenged Oxbridge interns running BBC News by robotically copying US news channels are currently leading on American Airlines having briefly grounded all flights, leading to delays in internal flights in a faraway land of which we know little and that has precisely sod all to do with the country paying their wages.
Might be of interest to those going to Florida, Las Vegas, New York city or California for Christmas though, expecially if they are changing flight in the US
The unification of North America from the arctic to the canal makes a lot of sense.
Manifest destiny!
I'd suggest that residual implicit belief in Manifest Destiny is a reason why the USA is so screwed-up. Even amongst intelligent and experienced commentators on the anti-Trump side (eg Popok), I constantly hear guff about "the greatest country in the world", the most glorious democratic system, and all the rest.
A quite funny one I heard recently was a suggestion that problems with Presidential Pardon were something to do with King Ine of Wessex (688–725), because he first is the first known monarch who to come up with the idea of clemency. That I think was Popok. Nothing to do with Usonia having failed to reform the practice * as has happened elsewhere, and so instutionalising corruption in the Presidency.
* I confess I'm not sure how Pardons work in eg Canada, or Oz, or South Africa, or India, or Ireland, or other countries influenced by British legal norms.
The underlying problem in the American system is that it was founded to parallel the British system, with the President as the King, the Senate as the Lords, and the Representatives as the Commons; but while we have evolved to a purely constitutional monarchy, America's President remains in charge, set in aspic in the 18th Century.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
When people say copious amounts of fat, they mean it. You will not believe how much fat comes off.
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
Precisely, so what do they have to lose?
Double down and tackle all the grey shibboleths at once. Merge Income Tax and NI so pensioners aren't on a lower rate of tax than working people. Deal with planning and the green belt so young people can get houses.
Just deal with everything that long should have been done but couldn't be done by the last government that was reliant on the grey vote in a way that Labour is not.
Rayner has already announced plans to concrete over much of the greenbelt.
Labour is now polling 25-29% and is the most unpopular new government since records began, hitting farmers, pensioners, small businesses etc.
But we're right at the start of the election cycle. The idea is to have a solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027. The last thing you want to do is peak too early. History is littered with examples of what happens when someone or something peaks too early.
Well that "solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027" was the idea...
They'll be lucky to hit it by 2029.
We'll see. And remember this, the further it goes down the stronger it will pop up when it emerges. Like the rubber duck in a bath. I guess we all have one of those?
Unless they go down the plug hole.
I don't see the uptick as inevitable.
Well to switch to serious, which I probably shouldn't on Christmas Eve, but here goes since it's a non-standard boutique view I have on this "growth" business:
It's unrealistic to expect good growth over the next few years (solid and sustainable as opposed to manufactured froth) and imo they shouldn't have promised it. It won't be their fault if the economy remains sluggish (actually a par score) but of course if that does happen they'll pay a price politically.
This is fair enough because they'd seek to take credit if things somehow surprise on the upside, again mainly because of the macro factors improving, randomness and luck being the key players when it comes to the economy over the short term, far outweighing the impact of specific domestic policies.
This is why, on the politics, the absolutely crucial thing is to make the "14 years of Tory rot" charge stick (as the Cons did with "fixing Labour's mess"). Because that, if successful, will mitigate the political price for low growth and give them a good chance of a 2nd term.
You can't actually believe this garbage. If the Tories managed to rot the economy, clearly they had agency, so how is it the case that Sir Zero Plan has no agency now?
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't think the Tories did 'rot' the economy. They did badly on growth (and Brexit is especially worth a mention here as an anti-growth policy) but as always global factors dominated. If you look at UK economic performance over time the biggest contributory factor is world economic performance. UK governments do have an important impact on UK growth but it's on the margins compared to global factors and it doesn't happen within electoral cycles (unless it's of the frothy unsustainable variety).
So why has Dubai managed to sustain growth despite these global factors? Or rainier and closer to home, Ireland?
Mid East oil state and EU tax haven respectively. Both much smaller than us. Our realistic target is to perform in line with (and preferably a little better than) most of our peers. I'd like to see that in party manifestos.
Then for me (with Labour) the focus to be on a more equal distribution of income, wealth and opportunity. There's too much banging on about the size of the pie (where government impact is important but very limited) and too little about how it's sliced (where they can actually do loads).
If you look at our English speaking peers in America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand we've not kept up with them for the past 30 years.
If it had the pie would be considerably bigger and that is where governments can act, if they have the will to do so.
Again, I note, much higher immigration.
Nothing wrong with skilled immigration, especially if there's few restrictions on construction so migrants and young people can get a house.
The problem in this country is we have the worst of both worlds. Draconian planning restrictions mean that housing can't keep up with demand, and much of the migration that has come has been so firms can have minimum wage people to work with rather than skilled migrants.
Thanks to Rishi and Cleverly the minimum salary for a skilled worker migrant visa rose to £38,700 and thanks to Rayner and Starmer councils now have to meet a mandatory 1.5 million new homes over 5 years target.
Hopefully the former will gradually lead to less need for the likes of the latter after that 5 year time period
The geographically-challenged Oxbridge interns running BBC News by robotically copying US news channels are currently leading on American Airlines having briefly grounded all flights, leading to delays in internal flights in a faraway land of which we know little and that has precisely sod all to do with the country paying their wages.
Might be of interest to those going to Florida, Las Vegas, New York city or California for Christmas though, expecially if they are changing flight in the US
So the BBC News page is for the benefit of precisely three tourists hoping to change to AA flights if they landed in the couple of hours they were grounded? They'll have found out anyway once they arrived.
No. It is because everyone senior is on holiday and the junior staff left are mindlessly aping American news outlets.
In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following: • From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him. • In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl. • During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions. • Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts. • In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent. • Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct. • Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House.
And this guy, Trump wanted to be his Attorney General.
It's as if instead of Jefferson and Lincoln (who no doubt had their complications) being the abiding sprits of the American journey, Roy Cohn (who had a close relationship with Trump) has taken on the mantle. We have entered a time of public figures having no redeeming featutres whatsoever.
The USP seems to be "at least they don't pretend to be anything but shits".
It's a kind of ultra cynicism that's actually naive and invites rank exploitation.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
Precisely, so what do they have to lose?
Double down and tackle all the grey shibboleths at once. Merge Income Tax and NI so pensioners aren't on a lower rate of tax than working people. Deal with planning and the green belt so young people can get houses.
Just deal with everything that long should have been done but couldn't be done by the last government that was reliant on the grey vote in a way that Labour is not.
Rayner has already announced plans to concrete over much of the greenbelt.
Labour is now polling 25-29% and is the most unpopular new government since records began, hitting farmers, pensioners, small businesses etc.
But we're right at the start of the election cycle. The idea is to have a solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027. The last thing you want to do is peak too early. History is littered with examples of what happens when someone or something peaks too early.
Well that "solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027" was the idea...
They'll be lucky to hit it by 2029.
We'll see. And remember this, the further it goes down the stronger it will pop up when it emerges. Like the rubber duck in a bath. I guess we all have one of those?
Unless they go down the plug hole.
I don't see the uptick as inevitable.
Well to switch to serious, which I probably shouldn't on Christmas Eve, but here goes since it's a non-standard boutique view I have on this "growth" business:
It's unrealistic to expect good growth over the next few years (solid and sustainable as opposed to manufactured froth) and imo they shouldn't have promised it. It won't be their fault if the economy remains sluggish (actually a par score) but of course if that does happen they'll pay a price politically.
This is fair enough because they'd seek to take credit if things somehow surprise on the upside, again mainly because of the macro factors improving, randomness and luck being the key players when it comes to the economy over the short term, far outweighing the impact of specific domestic policies.
This is why, on the politics, the absolutely crucial thing is to make the "14 years of Tory rot" charge stick (as the Cons did with "fixing Labour's mess"). Because that, if successful, will mitigate the political price for low growth and give them a good chance of a 2nd term.
You can't actually believe this garbage. If the Tories managed to rot the economy, clearly they had agency, so how is it the case that Sir Zero Plan has no agency now?
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't think the Tories did 'rot' the economy. They did badly on growth (and Brexit is especially worth a mention here as an anti-growth policy) but as always global factors dominated. If you look at UK economic performance over time the biggest contributory factor is world economic performance. UK governments do have an important impact on UK growth but it's on the margins compared to global factors and it doesn't happen within electoral cycles (unless it's of the frothy unsustainable variety).
So why has Dubai managed to sustain growth despite these global factors? Or rainier and closer to home, Ireland?
Mid East oil state and EU tax haven respectively. Both much smaller than us. Our realistic target is to perform in line with (and preferably a little better than) most of our peers. I'd like to see that in party rhetoric and manifestos.
Then for me (with Labour) the focus to be on a more equal distribution of income, wealth and opportunity. There's too much banging on about the size of the pie (where government impact is important but very limited) and too little about how it's sliced (where they can do loads).
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
Precisely, so what do they have to lose?
Double down and tackle all the grey shibboleths at once. Merge Income Tax and NI so pensioners aren't on a lower rate of tax than working people. Deal with planning and the green belt so young people can get houses.
Just deal with everything that long should have been done but couldn't be done by the last government that was reliant on the grey vote in a way that Labour is not.
Rayner has already announced plans to concrete over much of the greenbelt.
Labour is now polling 25-29% and is the most unpopular new government since records began, hitting farmers, pensioners, small businesses etc.
But we're right at the start of the election cycle. The idea is to have a solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027. The last thing you want to do is peak too early. History is littered with examples of what happens when someone or something peaks too early.
Well that "solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027" was the idea...
They'll be lucky to hit it by 2029.
We'll see. And remember this, the further it goes down the stronger it will pop up when it emerges. Like the rubber duck in a bath. I guess we all have one of those?
Unless they go down the plug hole.
I don't see the uptick as inevitable.
Well to switch to serious, which I probably shouldn't on Christmas Eve, but here goes since it's a non-standard boutique view I have on this "growth" business:
It's unrealistic to expect good growth over the next few years (solid and sustainable as opposed to manufactured froth) and imo they shouldn't have promised it. It won't be their fault if the economy remains sluggish (actually a par score) but of course if that does happen they'll pay a price politically.
This is fair enough because they'd seek to take credit if things somehow surprise on the upside, again mainly because of the macro factors improving, randomness and luck being the key players when it comes to the economy over the short term, far outweighing the impact of specific domestic policies.
This is why, on the politics, the absolutely crucial thing is to make the "14 years of Tory rot" charge stick (as the Cons did with "fixing Labour's mess"). Because that, if successful, will mitigate the political price for low growth and give them a good chance of a 2nd term.
You can't actually believe this garbage. If the Tories managed to rot the economy, clearly they had agency, so how is it the case that Sir Zero Plan has no agency now?
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't think the Tories did 'rot' the economy. They did badly on growth (and Brexit is especially worth a mention here as an anti-growth policy) but as always global factors dominated. If you look at UK economic performance over time the biggest contributory factor is world economic performance. UK governments do have an important impact on UK growth but it's on the margins compared to global factors and it doesn't happen within electoral cycles (unless it's of the frothy unsustainable variety).
So why has Dubai managed to sustain growth despite these global factors? Or rainier and closer to home, Ireland?
Mid East oil state and EU tax haven respectively. Both much smaller than us. Our realistic target is to perform in line with (and preferably a little better than) most of our peers. I'd like to see that in party manifestos.
Then for me (with Labour) the focus to be on a more equal distribution of income, wealth and opportunity. There's too much banging on about the size of the pie (where government impact is important but very limited) and too little about how it's sliced (where they can actually do loads).
If you look at our English speaking peers in America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand we've not kept up with them for the past 30 years.
If it had the pie would be considerably bigger and that is where governments can act, if they have the will to do so.
We're in Western Europe. Can't see that changing under any government.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
And I suspect the very highest earners use tax breaks to be on much less than that.
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
Precisely, so what do they have to lose?
Double down and tackle all the grey shibboleths at once. Merge Income Tax and NI so pensioners aren't on a lower rate of tax than working people. Deal with planning and the green belt so young people can get houses.
Just deal with everything that long should have been done but couldn't be done by the last government that was reliant on the grey vote in a way that Labour is not.
Rayner has already announced plans to concrete over much of the greenbelt.
Labour is now polling 25-29% and is the most unpopular new government since records began, hitting farmers, pensioners, small businesses etc.
But we're right at the start of the election cycle. The idea is to have a solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027. The last thing you want to do is peak too early. History is littered with examples of what happens when someone or something peaks too early.
Well that "solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027" was the idea...
They'll be lucky to hit it by 2029.
We'll see. And remember this, the further it goes down the stronger it will pop up when it emerges. Like the rubber duck in a bath. I guess we all have one of those?
Unless they go down the plug hole.
I don't see the uptick as inevitable.
Well to switch to serious, which I probably shouldn't on Christmas Eve, but here goes since it's a non-standard boutique view I have on this "growth" business:
It's unrealistic to expect good growth over the next few years (solid and sustainable as opposed to manufactured froth) and imo they shouldn't have promised it. It won't be their fault if the economy remains sluggish (actually a par score) but of course if that does happen they'll pay a price politically.
This is fair enough because they'd seek to take credit if things somehow surprise on the upside, again mainly because of the macro factors improving, randomness and luck being the key players when it comes to the economy over the short term, far outweighing the impact of specific domestic policies.
This is why, on the politics, the absolutely crucial thing is to make the "14 years of Tory rot" charge stick (as the Cons did with "fixing Labour's mess"). Because that, if successful, will mitigate the political price for low growth and give them a good chance of a 2nd term.
You can't actually believe this garbage. If the Tories managed to rot the economy, clearly they had agency, so how is it the case that Sir Zero Plan has no agency now?
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't think the Tories did 'rot' the economy. They did badly on growth (and Brexit is especially worth a mention here as an anti-growth policy) but as always global factors dominated. If you look at UK economic performance over time the biggest contributory factor is world economic performance. UK governments do have an important impact on UK growth but it's on the margins compared to global factors and it doesn't happen within electoral cycles (unless it's of the frothy unsustainable variety).
So why has Dubai managed to sustain growth despite these global factors? Or rainier and closer to home, Ireland?
Mid East oil state and EU tax haven respectively. Both much smaller than us. Our realistic target is to perform in line with (and preferably a little better than) most of our peers. I'd like to see that in party manifestos.
Then for me (with Labour) the focus to be on a more equal distribution of income, wealth and opportunity. There's too much banging on about the size of the pie (where government impact is important but very limited) and too little about how it's sliced (where they can actually do loads).
If you look at our English speaking peers in America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand we've not kept up with them for the past 30 years.
If it had the pie would be considerably bigger and that is where governments can act, if they have the will to do so.
We're in Western Europe. Can't see that changing under any government.
We're in Planet Earth.
We have a 21st century global world. Our continent is irrelevant, millions who live here weren't even born on this continent. Our language matters more than our continent.
Our peers are the other English speaking developed nations.
In sum, the Committee found substantial evidence of the following: • From at least 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him. • In 2017, Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl. • During the period 2017 to 2019, Representative Gaetz used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions. • Representative Gaetz accepted gifts, including transportation and lodging in connection with a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, in excess of permissible amounts. • In 2018, Representative Gaetz arranged for his Chief of Staff to assist a woman with whom he engaged in sexual activity in obtaining a passport, falsely indicating to the U.S. Department of State that she was a constituent. • Representative Gaetz knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the Committee’s investigation of his conduct. • Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House.
And this guy, Trump wanted to be his Attorney General.
It's as if instead of Jefferson and Lincoln (who no doubt had their complications) being the abiding sprits of the American journey, Roy Cohn (who had a close relationship with Trump) has taken on the mantle. We have entered a time of public figures having no redeeming featutres whatsoever.
The USP seems to be "at least they don't pretend to be anything but shits".
It's a kind of ultra cynicism that's actually naive and invites rank exploitation.
Ha, I must apologise! I suppose not pretending to be anything but shits can be counted as a redeeming feature. I hope it’s a cycle but how much damage will be done at the low point of the cycle?
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
The polling doesn't support that claim.
Yes it does, hence Labour's poll collapse since July
Someone said Labour had a 6% lead. Really?
On just 29% ie Brown 2010 levels and only because the Tories were on 23% and 22% for Reform ie 45% for the right combined, even bigger than the 43% for Boris in 2019.
That was the BEST poll for Labour this month, others had them tied with the Tories
The geographically-challenged Oxbridge interns running BBC News by robotically copying US news channels are currently leading on American Airlines having briefly grounded all flights, leading to delays in internal flights in a faraway land of which we know little and that has precisely sod all to do with the country paying their wages.
Might be of interest to those going to Florida, Las Vegas, New York city or California for Christmas though, expecially if they are changing flight in the US
So the BBC News page is for the benefit of precisely three tourists hoping to change to AA flights if they landed in the couple of hours they were grounded? They'll have found out anyway once they arrived.
A few more than that I suggest.
The chap behind the counter at my local Travis Perkins has a place in Florida.
Looking around, numbers of Brits resident in Florida are getting on for 100k. Plus holiday home owners.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
The geographically-challenged Oxbridge interns running BBC News by robotically copying US news channels are currently leading on American Airlines having briefly grounded all flights, leading to delays in internal flights in a faraway land of which we know little and that has precisely sod all to do with the country paying their wages.
Might be of interest to those going to Florida, Las Vegas, New York city or California for Christmas though, expecially if they are changing flight in the US
So the BBC News page is for the benefit of precisely three tourists hoping to change to AA flights if they landed in the couple of hours they were grounded? They'll have found out anyway once they arrived.
'A few more than that I suggest.
The chap behind the counter at my local Travis Perkins has a place in Florida.
Looking around, numbers of Brits resident in Florida are getting on for 100k. Plus holiday home owners.'
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
The polling doesn't support that claim.
Yes it does, hence Labour's poll collapse since July
Someone said Labour had a 6% lead. Really?
On just 29% ie Brown 2010 levels and only because the Tories were on 23% and 22% for Reform ie 45% for the right combined, even bigger than the 43% for Boris in 2019.
That was the BEST poll for Labour this month, others had them tied with the Tories
Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
On what grounds? Starmer's government is the most unpopular newly elected government in the UK since polling records began.
Most polls have it already losing its majority and even the Opinium you champion has Labour scraping home with the loss of nearly 100 Labour MPs
A lot of the Social Welfare net, the major one being Universal Credit, has been thoroughly tested in the courts and is tested daily in the various tribunals or through Judicial Reviews. The legislation has been bent into shape or out of shape depending on your point of view. Changing it or throwing it out would go through the same processes. Unless you use the Rwanda approach and declare the amounts 'sufficient' and remove the opportunity to challenge it. Like the Rwanda approach it smacks of dictatorship and we have thoroughly rejected that form of centralised government diktat.
Tony Blair's government had many, many faults (too numerous to mention here) but they had one good idea which was the 'Nudge Unit' or Behavioural Insights. Changing the underlining system without assessing not just the Impact Assessment but the Behavioural assessment would go a long way to moving the change along.
For example, Housing Benefit or Housing Element is paid at an individual rate that encourages couples to live apart. Fatherless households are not necessarily fatherless. This is a areas that needs looked at before you get into the some of the other areas such as Limited Capability for Work. It is paid both to the Social Landlords and to private ones too but only Social Landlords are obliged to make rents affordable and their properties to the Decent Homes standard. So if Housing Element was only paid to Social Landlords there would be enough income to underpin a growth in affordable properties to a decent standard. Private landlords being the highly rational economic people they are, would release rented homes to those who wish to purchase ensuring the opportunity to purchase your own home - though it will likely need significant improvement if you saw some of the private rented accommodation about.
There's plenty for the government to do without getting into generating waves or new and unnecessary legislation that bogged down the last governments.
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
Precisely, so what do they have to lose?
Double down and tackle all the grey shibboleths at once. Merge Income Tax and NI so pensioners aren't on a lower rate of tax than working people. Deal with planning and the green belt so young people can get houses.
Just deal with everything that long should have been done but couldn't be done by the last government that was reliant on the grey vote in a way that Labour is not.
Rayner has already announced plans to concrete over much of the greenbelt.
Labour is now polling 25-29% and is the most unpopular new government since records began, hitting farmers, pensioners, small businesses etc.
But we're right at the start of the election cycle. The idea is to have a solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027. The last thing you want to do is peak too early. History is littered with examples of what happens when someone or something peaks too early.
Well that "solid and rapidly improving economy by around spring 2027" was the idea...
They'll be lucky to hit it by 2029.
We'll see. And remember this, the further it goes down the stronger it will pop up when it emerges. Like the rubber duck in a bath. I guess we all have one of those?
Unless they go down the plug hole.
I don't see the uptick as inevitable.
Well to switch to serious, which I probably shouldn't on Christmas Eve, but here goes since it's a non-standard boutique view I have on this "growth" business:
It's unrealistic to expect good growth over the next few years (solid and sustainable as opposed to manufactured froth) and imo they shouldn't have promised it. It won't be their fault if the economy remains sluggish (actually a par score) but of course if that does happen they'll pay a price politically.
This is fair enough because they'd seek to take credit if things somehow surprise on the upside, again mainly because of the macro factors improving, randomness and luck being the key players when it comes to the economy over the short term, far outweighing the impact of specific domestic policies.
This is why, on the politics, the absolutely crucial thing is to make the "14 years of Tory rot" charge stick (as the Cons did with "fixing Labour's mess"). Because that, if successful, will mitigate the political price for low growth and give them a good chance of a 2nd term.
You can't actually believe this garbage. If the Tories managed to rot the economy, clearly they had agency, so how is it the case that Sir Zero Plan has no agency now?
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't think the Tories did 'rot' the economy. They did badly on growth (and Brexit is especially worth a mention here as an anti-growth policy) but as always global factors dominated. If you look at UK economic performance over time the biggest contributory factor is world economic performance. UK governments do have an important impact on UK growth but it's on the margins compared to global factors and it doesn't happen within electoral cycles (unless it's of the frothy unsustainable variety).
So why has Dubai managed to sustain growth despite these global factors? Or rainier and closer to home, Ireland?
Mid East oil state and EU tax haven respectively. Both much smaller than us. Our realistic target is to perform in line with (and preferably a little better than) most of our peers. I'd like to see that in party manifestos.
Then for me (with Labour) the focus to be on a more equal distribution of income, wealth and opportunity. There's too much banging on about the size of the pie (where government impact is important but very limited) and too little about how it's sliced (where they can actually do loads).
If you look at our English speaking peers in America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand we've not kept up with them for the past 30 years.
If it had the pie would be considerably bigger and that is where governments can act, if they have the will to do so.
UK gdp per capita is higher than in NZ and not far off Canada, the US and Australia are higher still but their governments both tax and spend significantly less than we do and the US doesn't even have universal healthcare which both healthcare provided by private health insurance companies
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
American GDP per capita is 76% higher than it is in the UK, I'd consider that far off.
In comparison 30 years ago our GDP per capita was genuinely not far off the USA, and considerably ahead of Canada, Australia and NZ rather than being behind the former two.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
Do you want people on UC to stay doing next to no hours so they can get maximum benefits and not pay taxes? Or do you want them to work full time? If you want them to work full time, they need a reason why they should be working full time - like getting to keep some of what they work for.
American GDP per capita is 76% higher than it is in the UK, I'd consider that far off.
In comparison 30 years ago our GDP per capita was genuinely not far off the USA, and considerably ahead of Canada, Australia and NZ rather than being behind the former two.
Well we could scrap the NHS and replace it by mainly private health insurance, scrap universal credit and just have unemployment benefits for those who have contributed via insurance for 6 months only and have even less social housing and less spending on state education like the US does. Then we could get close to or even overtake the US on gdp per capita again, 30 years ago Thatcher had just left office and we had lower tax and lower spending by the state as a percentage of gdp than we do now.
However most UK voters, outside of Thatcherite Tories and Reform rightwingers don't want to become the US
American GDP per capita is 76% higher than it is in the UK, I'd consider that far off.
In comparison 30 years ago our GDP per capita was genuinely not far off the USA, and considerably ahead of Canada, Australia and NZ rather than being behind the former two.
If a country like the US spends enormous amounts of money on, say, air conditioning, which they often don't really need, and generates a lot of GDP from that, is that a reliable way of measuring a country's economy? Or, alternatively, if they spend a lot of money on medical treatments that very often aren't necessary, the same question could be asked. I've often wondered about this, more from a philosophical point of view.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
The chap behind the counter at my local Travis Perkins has a place in Florida.
Looking around, numbers of Brits resident in Florida are getting on for 100k. Plus holiday home owners.
No doubt lots of Britons holiday in America, but the only ones affected will be the two or three (or two or three dozen) attempting to change flights during this shortlived outage.
The United States has not permanently banned interstate travel. One airline grounded its flights for less than an hour. It is of little consequence in America and none at all here, where the BBC led with it.
Its a slow news day, until the Santa Tracker comes out its probably one of the most consequential and interesting stories happening today.
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
The whole point that Bart is trying to make is that if you are seeing 75% of the £11.50 your job pays you disappearing in tax your hour of overtime will give you £2.80 in your pocket. And to 99% of the population £2.80 extra is not enough money to justify continuing to work beyond the absolute minimum
The chap behind the counter at my local Travis Perkins has a place in Florida.
Looking around, numbers of Brits resident in Florida are getting on for 100k. Plus holiday home owners.
No doubt lots of Britons holiday in America, but the only ones affected will be the two or three (or two or three dozen) attempting to change flights during this shortlived outage.
The United States has not permanently banned interstate travel. One airline grounded its flights for less than an hour. It is of little consequence in America and none at all here, where the BBC led with it.
Its a slow news day, until the Santa Tracker comes out its probably one of the most consequential and interesting stories happening today.
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
Banned? You’re suggesting the police will come and confiscate them?
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
The whole point that Bart is trying to make is that if you are seeing 75% of the £11.50 your job pays you disappearing in tax your hour of overtime will give you £2.80 in your pocket. And to 99% of the population £2.80 extra is not enough money to justify continuing to work beyond the absolute minimum
And if you're part time doing say 2 or 3 days a week and could do 5 days a week, why pick up another day's work if all those hours are taxed at over 75% and you'll need to pay transportation costs and other related costs for going into work on those days without getting money in your pocket to show for it?
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
The whole point that Bart is trying to make is that if you are seeing 75% of the £11.50 your job pays you disappearing in tax your hour of overtime will give you £2.80 in your pocket. And to 99% of the population £2.80 extra is not enough money to justify continuing to work beyond the absolute minimum
And if you're part time doing say 2 or 3 days a week and could do 5 days a week, why pick up another day's work if all those hours are taxed at over 75% and you'll need to pay transportation costs and other related costs for going into work on those days without getting money in your pocket to show for it?
TBF, they are pampered compared with the poor carers who had a marginal tax rate of about 5 trillion per cent.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
(Literally the single easiest thing to cook, and will keep for at least 6 months in the fridge.)
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
You will get enough fat off one goose to roast the spuds of an entire street...
Labour are in trouble (admittedly with a huge majority, trouble might not be the right word)
Their trouble is that they are a 20th century party with 19th century thinking. I think Starmer and Reeves have done an incredible job to polish the brasswork and sell us their steam engines, but it's all wrong.
The Tories are what? An 18th century party with some 20th century thinking, but a mindset from the 12th century.
The LDs - lost at sea
Greens - lost
Reform - euthanasia for the thinking man
How hard can it be to assemble something resembling thought and make a political argument for it?
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
You will get enough fat off one goose to roast the spuds of an entire street...
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
Banned? You’re suggesting the police will come and confiscate them?
Silly boy.
"Santa will give you a present if you vote Tory. And if you don't believe me the Grinch will come and take away your Austin Maxi."
The chap behind the counter at my local Travis Perkins has a place in Florida.
Looking around, numbers of Brits resident in Florida are getting on for 100k. Plus holiday home owners.
No doubt lots of Britons holiday in America, but the only ones affected will be the two or three (or two or three dozen) attempting to change flights during this shortlived outage.
The United States has not permanently banned interstate travel. One airline grounded its flights for less than an hour. It is of little consequence in America and none at all here, where the BBC led with it.
Its a slow news day, until the Santa Tracker comes out its probably one of the most consequential and interesting stories happening today.
What else should they be leading with?
The deep-frozen baby mammoth? Which a Neanderthal would find a very topical story (Christmas dinner and all that). But that was yesterday.
Final thought because then I need to stop putting it off and get into the kitchen to prep Christmas Dinner.
Many people who "can't do Maths" turn into freaking Rain Man when it comes to being able to work out the optimal way to get the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of work.
Which is hardly shocking when taxes go from 0 to almost 100%, that people choose to stop working when it does.
Instead of having a 75% plus marginal tax rate, merge UC, NI and Income Tax and have a flat and consistent 25% tax rate at the bottom with no taper and people would think that they'd keep three quarters of any extra they earn which would be worthwhile doing so more people would voluntarily work full time with the Treasury then net getting a quarter of that extra effort being better than not getting any of it and paying them not to work instead.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
The whole point that Bart is trying to make is that if you are seeing 75% of the £11.50 your job pays you disappearing in tax your hour of overtime will give you £2.80 in your pocket. And to 99% of the population £2.80 extra is not enough money to justify continuing to work beyond the absolute minimum
Particularly when it’s not a nice cosy job in lovely office, with a four figure priced coffee machine that grinds the beans on demand.
I’ve sat across a desk, from people who are in this situation. By the time you factor in travel, wear on clothing (many of these jobs are hard on footwear)….
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
(Literally the single easiest thing to cook, and will keep for at least 6 months in the fridge.)
I might be tempted to try curacao (not the blue one though)
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
It was a malt. (Cheapish, as I use it for cooking.)
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
We used to have a flock of geese that just wandered around, when I was in my teens.
They were great for keeping people on the public footpath that ran alongside the paddock, rather than hoping over and trespassing.
The only real problems was idiots letting their dogs of their leads, and friendly little Fido was just as addicted to chasing as killing as most dogs in history when the chance presents itself. We had a few killed, and several moronic owners who scarpered, whilst perhaps thinking of themselves as honest citizens.
we also had one for Christmas sometimes. Sarah Palin could explain how to do the "fun", as she called it.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
(Literally the single easiest thing to cook, and will keep for at least 6 months in the fridge.)
I might be tempted to try curacao (not the blue one though)
Final thought because then I need to stop putting it off and get into the kitchen to prep Christmas Dinner.
Many people who "can't do Maths" turn into freaking Rain Man when it comes to being able to work out the optimal way to get the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of work.
Which is hardly shocking when taxes go from 0 to almost 100%, that people choose to stop working when it does.
Instead of having a 75% plus marginal tax rate, merge UC, NI and Income Tax and have a flat and consistent 25% tax rate at the bottom with no taper and people would think that they'd keep three quarters of any extra they earn which would be worthwhile doing so more people would voluntarily work full time with the Treasury then net getting a quarter of that extra effort being better than not getting any of it and paying them not to work instead.
No, income tax even at its lowest level is 20% not 25% and NI should be ringfenced to fund state pensions and JSA with no NI credits
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
(Literally the single easiest thing to cook, and will keep for at least 6 months in the fridge.)
I might be tempted to try curacao (not the blue one though)
Did an old favourite for the young ladies of the house.
1) melt a big bar of chocolate in a Pyrex bowl over boiling water 2) roll some strawberries in it 3) put them on a baking sheet on the fridge to set. The baking sheet stops them sticking.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
It was a malt. (Cheapish, as I use it for cooking.)
Getting whisky to work in cooking is a real skill I think. I've certainly not got close. Hat's off.
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
Banned? You’re suggesting the police will come and confiscate them?
Silly boy.
It will be illegal to produce new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars from 2030 under Miliband's plans yes
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
I'd have thought a dash of Creme de Cassis would enhance that.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
It was a malt. (Cheapish, as I use it for cooking.)
Getting whisky to work in cooking is a real skill I think. I've certainly not got close. Hat's off.
Cranachan is about the only recipe where I'd use whisky - I'm not sure I'd even try otherwise. Home made trifle is much better with sherry than whisky, for instance.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
It was a malt. (Cheapish, as I use it for cooking.)
Getting whisky to work in cooking is a real skill I think. I've certainly not got close. Hat's off.
Cranachan is about the only recipe where I'd use whisky - I'm not sure I'd even try otherwise. Home made trifle is much better with sherry than whisky, for instance.
I think I tried something with scallops and whisky. (And other things I've forgotten). The result was dreadful.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
And childcare - a particular problem with overtime de facto.
Labour are in trouble (admittedly with a huge majority, trouble might not be the right word)
Their trouble is that they are a 20th century party with 19th century thinking. I think Starmer and Reeves have done an incredible job to polish the brasswork and sell us their steam engines, but it's all wrong.
The Tories are what? An 18th century party with some 20th century thinking, but a mindset from the 12th century.
The LDs - lost at sea
Greens - lost
Reform - euthanasia for the thinking man
How hard can it be to assemble something resembling thought and make a political argument for it?
Labour are the party for the public sector and most recent immigrants, the Tories are the party for the Leave voting private sector middle class and pensioners and army officers, the LDs are the party for the Remain voting private sector middle class and the Greens are the party for students and ex Corbynites and Reform are the party for the private sector white working class and increasingly small business owners and rank and file soldiers.
There, that is most bases covered who else needs a party we have missed?
American GDP per capita is 76% higher than it is in the UK, I'd consider that far off.
In comparison 30 years ago our GDP per capita was genuinely not far off the USA, and considerably ahead of Canada, Australia and NZ rather than being behind the former two.
If a country like the US spends enormous amounts of money on, say, air conditioning, which they often don't really need, and generates a lot of GDP from that, is that a reliable way of measuring a country's economy? Or, alternatively, if they spend a lot of money on medical treatments that very often aren't necessary, the same question could be asked. I've often wondered about this, more from a philosophical point of view.
Quantities like life expectancy or general happiness are probably better metrics of a nation's well being.
Labour are in trouble (admittedly with a huge majority, trouble might not be the right word)
Their trouble is that they are a 20th century party with 19th century thinking. I think Starmer and Reeves have done an incredible job to polish the brasswork and sell us their steam engines, but it's all wrong.
The Tories are what? An 18th century party with some 20th century thinking, but a mindset from the 12th century.
The LDs - lost at sea
Greens - lost
Reform - euthanasia for the thinking man
How hard can it be to assemble something resembling thought and make a political argument for it?
Labour are the party for the public sector and most recent immigrants, the Tories are the party for the Leave voting private sector middle class and pensioners and army officers, the LDs are the party for the Remain voting private sector middle class and the Greens are the party for students and ex Corbynites and Reform are the party for the private sector white working class and increasingly small business owners and rank and file soldiers.
There, that is most bases covered who else needs a party we have missed?
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
And childcare - a particular problem with overtime de facto.
Or travel costs when it comes to working extra days instead of only 2-3 days a week.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
I'd have thought a dash of Creme de Cassis would enhance that.
We do use blackcurrant jelly (or redcurrant jelly) as a cranberry sauce equivalent - or even in preference.
Well, I'm shortly to be off to listen to R4 carol concert from Kings.
Always the official start of xmas proper for me. Mince pie, cup of tea or maybe a glass of port, and finish wrapping presents with radio on. Marvellous.
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
The polling doesn't support that claim.
Yes it does, hence Labour's poll collapse since July
Someone said Labour had a 6% lead. Really?
On just 29% ie Brown 2010 levels and only because the Tories were on 23% and 22% for Reform ie 45% for the right combined, even bigger than the 43% for Boris in 2019.
That was the BEST poll for Labour this month, others had them tied with the Tories
Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
On what grounds? Starmer's government is the most unpopular newly elected government in the UK since polling records began.
Most polls have it already losing its majority and even the Opinium you champion has Labour scraping home with the loss of nearly 100 Labour MPs
Well according to Electoral Calculus it gives Labour a 54 seat majority. After the disastrous start by the "most unpopular newly elected government since records began" I expect Starmer may be sitting by his pool sipping a glass of Sangria with a quiet sense of satisfaction and possibly even a smile on his face.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
And childcare - a particular problem with overtime de facto.
Or travel costs when it comes to working extra days instead of only 2-3 days a week.
Not sure that applies, tbf, as they're pro rata per diem, unless it's a half day or messes up travel arrangements such as lifts?
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
(Literally the single easiest thing to cook, and will keep for at least 6 months in the fridge.)
I might be tempted to try curacao (not the blue one though)
Did an old favourite for the young ladies of the house.
1) melt a big bar of chocolate in a Pyrex bowl over boiling water 2) roll some strawberries in it 3) put them on a baking sheet on the fridge to set. The baking sheet stops them sticking.
Plain I hope. The combinaqtion is surprisingly good. Sometimes if Mrs C is coming home late via M&S she gets strawberries and a pair of choc eclairs and we have them as a quick dessert with a little extra cream.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
If we had the US model they would get 100% taper as they would get no benefits at all beyond 6 months of unemployment as I said and they would either find paid work, find a food bank or starve.
Even the unemployment benefits for that 6 months will only be received if they have made enough insurance contributions from previous employment.
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
Banned? You’re suggesting the police will come and confiscate them?
Silly boy.
It will be illegal to produce new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars from 2030 under Miliband's plans yes
It’s depressing. And funny at the same time. You know for a fact that “banned” is not the same as “millions and millions and millions of these cars continuing to be driven for decades more”. You know for a fact that this policy was created by your own party. By your own Prime Minister. As voted for and supported by you.
And here you are. Spouting idiocy like “banned .” Because of your abject fear that Reform have already supplanted your party in the anyone listening and having any relevance race.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
And childcare - a particular problem with overtime de facto.
Or travel costs when it comes to working extra days instead of only 2-3 days a week.
Not sure that applies, tbf, as they're pro rata per diem, unless it's a half day or messes up travel arrangements such as lifts?
Of course it applies.
EG my wife has a colleague who works 3 days a week while the kids are at school.
She could work 5 days a week while the kids are at school without needing childcare, but if she did she'd "lose her benefits" and be taxed and have to pay for bus fare on the extra days worked. After taper and taxes the extra bus fare eats what's left so what's the point in her working the extra days?
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
(Literally the single easiest thing to cook, and will keep for at least 6 months in the fridge.)
I might be tempted to try curacao (not the blue one though)
Did an old favourite for the young ladies of the house.
1) melt a big bar of chocolate in a Pyrex bowl over boiling water 2) roll some strawberries in it 3) put them on a baking sheet on the fridge to set. The baking sheet stops them sticking.
Plain I hope. The combinaqtion is surprisingly good. Sometimes if Mrs C is coming home late via M&S she gets strawberries and a pair of choc eclairs and we have them as a quick dessert with a little extra cream.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
If we had the US model they would get 100% taper as they would get no benefits at all beyond 6 months of unemployment as I said and they would either find paid work, find a food bank or starve.
Even the unemployment benefits for that 6 months will only be received if they have made enough insurance contributions from previous employment.
But we don't have the US model, we have the UK model where we tell people that if they work more than minimum time the Treasury will tax them at almost 100% rate for doing so on any marginal income above the minimum.
So millions don't work more than the minimum, because people are rational human beings.
Fix it. We don't need to just say "we're better than America on one metric", we can do better than we are today. Do you want people who can to work full time or not? If you do, they need to be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
Not wanting to be uncharitable at Christmas, but this is just the Daily Grunt, and the headline is a deceptionmisleading.
The "ban" is actually an option for an emissions limit at 115 g/km CO2, which they would have until 2030 to meet (assuming that is the outcome), so it isn't a ban. It isn't a plan either, as it is a consultation - and this Govt has listened assiduously to representation so far, for example in the Planning Proposals.
115 g/km CO2 is very close to what my huge 2018 diesel estate, which does 0-60 in under 9 seconds, tows 2 tons, and tops out at 135mph, puts out (119, iirc).
The only exact model they cite is a Range Rover Evoque, at 168 g/km CO2, and I'm sure can be re-engineered for better emissions in 5 years. They are pretending it can't be improved, which is balls. If it needs a slightly smaller engine, or it means that the Micropenis Bros or Katie Price drive around a little more slowly so they have time to see what they are doing - good.
The article documents that the industry are welcoming the consultation.
This is the Telegrunt on an archaeological expedition to find the Neanderthal version of the Conservative Party, and fluff some RefUKers.
Offtopic but it’s Christmas, here’s Eddie Hearn in the US last month trying to sell the idea of darts to Americans. Interview with Patrick Bet-David, where he says that Matchroom’s darts operation is now twice as big as their boxing operation by revenue and profit.
There is a youngish chap on the YouTubes / newsletter that specializes in the business of sport. He put out a video about 3 weeks ago looking at everything Matchroom and identified that the Darts is now the big money earner...and....the current Sky tv contract comes up for renewal shortly. Now Eddie has this relationship with DAZN for the boxing and overseas rights for the darts is already with DAZN, at the very least he will be making Sky dig a lot deeper into their pockets for the rights, but perhaps he might even get a bumper deal from DAZN.
Last year’s darts final was apparently the highest audience Sky has ever had for something that wasn’t a football match, it was up there with the top Olympic events (that were on BBC) in the year’s ratings, around 9m watched it. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out with the international rights.
The problem for the Darts / DAZN idea is that it would kill darts. Lets assume DAZN come in with a bonkers offer and the PDC accept it. Their audience will collapse, and take down the current surge in interest for the sport. So they take the money now and watch the sport collapse back to late 80s levels of disinterest.
We saw something similar (on a tinier scale) with Formula-E. They sold UK rights to TNT, who added an extra £crackers subscription to watch. Having built an audience from idiots like me who had watched every race from the start, they killed it stone dead. Nobody watching, nobody taking up the TNT package, little interest in the season finale at Excel. Result? Back on terrestrial TV in 2025.
Yes it’s a potential issue for the UK audience, but the DAZN business model is buying up global right to a whole load of second-tier sports, and the darts moving from Sky, if it does, will drive a load of subscriptions their way.
Internationally is another story though, there’s the potential to massively elevate a sport not taken seriously by the vast majority of the world, into something that’s a great event to watch either on TV on live in the crowd.
Formula E, dare I say it, has suffered from the product itself being a steaming pile of crap, although this will improve with the next-gen cars. Their fan base are generally not otherwise motorsport fans, which means they need to prioritise eyeballs over income ie by being on terrestrial TV.
If contractors want the same employment rights as staff, they could try paying the same taxes as staff.
And not claiming their commute as a business expense.
Not sure what prompted that rant...but UK contractor scene Outside IR35 - ltd company. no employment rights,, can only claim travel to temporary, not main, work site. Control over pay, dividends and pension payments. Inside ir35 - no employment rights, money has to go through unregulated umbrella company (best situation just incompetent not actively defrauding you) no control over pay or pension but full liability for any tax nonpayment issues. This is quite literally having your money paid to someone like Doug Barrowman to take his cut, relying on them to make tax deductions and pay them to HMRC, then pay you. Fixed term contract - basically staff, some employee benefits but not full employment rights. Probably staff rate.
1 and 3 are OK. 2 is a totally fucked up situation that just created a bigger space for a redundant middle-party to take a cut. Typical Fucking Tories.
Abolish NI the IR35 issue goes away.
Considering NI is a tax paid to the state it should have absolutely nothing to do with "employment rights" which are paid by the employer, not the state.
Don't disagree but politically impossible I'd say. The wealthy with mainly investment income would whip up the pensioner vote in outrage, JSP would have to be taken out by a sniper to save the nation's hearing.
80% of pensioners didn't vote Labour at the last election. If it were up to pensioners alone we'd have a landslide Tory government.
Labour shouldn't be kowtowing to the grey vote. If they do, they deserve to lose the next election.
Labour have already infuriated pensioners by the WFA cut, hence most of those pensioners who did vote Labour in July have now gone Tory, Reform or LD
The polling doesn't support that claim.
Yes it does, hence Labour's poll collapse since July
Someone said Labour had a 6% lead. Really?
On just 29% ie Brown 2010 levels and only because the Tories were on 23% and 22% for Reform ie 45% for the right combined, even bigger than the 43% for Boris in 2019.
That was the BEST poll for Labour this month, others had them tied with the Tories
Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
On what grounds? Starmer's government is the most unpopular newly elected government in the UK since polling records began.
Most polls have it already losing its majority and even the Opinium you champion has Labour scraping home with the loss of nearly 100 Labour MPs
Well according to Electoral Calculus it gives Labour a 54 seat majority. After the disastrous start by the "most unpopular newly elected government since records began" I expect Starmer may be sitting by his pool sipping a glass of Sangria with a quiet sense of satisfaction and possibly even a smile on his face.
All of the above results for Labour would be worse than the 91 seats Brown lost in 2010 and the 60 seats Corbyn lost in 2019 and the 60 seats Foot lost in 1983.
So nothing at all for Sir Keir to smile about. Indeed if we had PR on the Techne and FindOutNow polls we would be heading for a Tory and Reform governmet
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
Banned? You’re suggesting the police will come and confiscate them?
Silly boy.
It will be illegal to produce new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars from 2030 under Miliband's plans yes
It’s depressing. And funny at the same time. You know for a fact that “banned” is not the same as “millions and millions and millions of these cars continuing to be driven for decades more”. You know for a fact that this policy was created by your own party. By your own Prime Minister. As voted for and supported by you.
And here you are. Spouting idiocy like “banned .” Because of your abject fear that Reform have already supplanted your party in the anyone listening and having any relevance race.
Nope, the Tories moved the date to 2035, it is Labour who have moved the date back to 2030 for the ban. Reform have at least ensured that from your perspective the next right of centre government we get in this nation will be far nastier than any Tory government we have had since Thatcher
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
If we had the US model they would get 100% taper as they would get no benefits at all beyond 6 months of unemployment as I said and they would either find paid work, find a food bank or starve.
Even the unemployment benefits for that 6 months will only be received if they have made enough insurance contributions from previous employment.
But we don't have the US model, we have the UK model where we tell people that if they work more than minimum time the Treasury will tax them at almost 100% rate for doing so on any marginal income above the minimum.
So millions don't work more than the minimum, because people are rational human beings.
Fix it. We don't need to just say "we're better than America on one metric", we can do better than we are today. Do you want people who can to work full time or not? If you do, they need to be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
Which either comes from taxpayers on average income and above paying for more in work benefits for the lower paid or even lower taxes for the lowest earners which in turn means public service cuts to fund them
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
If we had the US model they would get 100% taper as they would get no benefits at all beyond 6 months of unemployment as I said and they would either find paid work, find a food bank or starve.
Even the unemployment benefits for that 6 months will only be received if they have made enough insurance contributions from previous employment.
But we don't have the US model, we have the UK model where we tell people that if they work more than minimum time the Treasury will tax them at almost 100% rate for doing so on any marginal income above the minimum.
So millions don't work more than the minimum, because people are rational human beings.
Fix it. We don't need to just say "we're better than America on one metric", we can do better than we are today. Do you want people who can to work full time or not? If you do, they need to be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
Oh, dear! I popped in here for some Christmas cheer, and what to I get? Barty and HYUFD having the same argument they’ve been having all year. Merry Christmas, everyone.
The budget and subsequent actions suggest, at least to me, it was good economics but bad politics.
There is a whole raft of structural decline to be reversed, be it roads, health, housing - just the nuts and bolts of a country. The idea that 'the market will fix it' is the mantra from a purists point of view but the Thames Water debacle shows that markets can be manipulated as politics and politicians constantly show themselves to be less able than the financial buccaneers.
Also where are economic cycles in all this? Germany looks like a classic case of on the downslope along with France so it's no surprise there would be a softening here due to the effects on our main trading partners. (42% of all exports)
... or did Gordon Brown actually achieve the demise of 'boom and bust'?
It was utterly terrible economics, hammering in taxes those who go to work, the productive part of the economy while leaving the rest of the economy untaxed.
You tax that which you wish to discourage, if you directly jack up taxes on employment/work you are discouraging work and NI is direct taxation on employment in the same way as fuel duty is direct taxation on fuel.
In a counterfactual world what Labour could have done is come in and taken the brave decision to merge National Insurance and Income Tax which would eliminate the 12% extra taxes that those who work for a living have to pay over those who don't.
That would be a 12% increase in Income Tax (without changing Income Tax rates) for those who aren't working on PAYE, while leaving PAYE workers tax rates unchanged. There's your tax rise for the nuts and bolts you want, if that's what you believe in, without hammering businesses or workers or people's pay for going to work.
And it would have been just as consistent with the manifesto as what they did.
I agree with this change and I am one of those pensioners who pay less tax than working people. However I suspect there are about 8 million votes at stake here. So good luck with that one.
So they increased 20 million people's taxes instead? The 20 million already paying more taxes than the 8 million? Besides how many of the 8 million are swing voters?
In 2024 Labour only got 20% of the votes of over-70s, with 46% going to the Tories and 15% going to Reform.
Labour won because they got the votes of working age people.
The incoming Labour government could and should have prioritised working age people who are heavily overtaxed and underfunded. Abolishing WFA was a tiny step in the right direction but then jacking up NI more than undid all the good of that, and won't win them any favour from the 80% of over-70 voters that were already not voting for them, or those that did that have already left them due to WFA.
They should have merged NI and Income Tax. Yes the pensioners would object, but that wouldn't change many votes since they were already not voting Labour anyway!
A credible program for reforming the country would tackle all the shibboleths the prior government couldn't because of the threat of the grey vote. Abolish unnecessary welfare life WFA, abolish unjustified tax breaks like not paying NI on pensions, and tackle issues like planning restrictions that prevent young people getting a home because it might affect the view of a pensioner - or their house prices.
Merging NI and income tax would just expand the dependency culture of welfare we have massively by ending the contributory element to JSA and state pensions which cannot be claimed without enough NI contributions or credits. Absolutely not and we should also be using NI to help fund social care too and ideally move to a French style use of more social insurance to fund healthcare more broadly as well
There is no contributory element already since you get NI "credits" for being unemployed and living on welfare.
There is absolutely no reason to have NI exist to have contributions. Just set contributions based on Income Tax paid if that's what you want.
All the arrangements for Income Tax and NI need reviewing. As do the mechanisms for 'reclaiming' over-payments from those receiving benefits. They are all the result of piecemeal changes and someone needs to have a good look at them and rationalise the whole thing.
They did review the whole issue of benefits and called it Universal Credit. It was introduced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference by Ian Duncan Smith who is responsible for a lot of it. The mechanism is a form of social net and the taper effect (taking away 'overpayment') is core. Even 14 years later it is not fully implemented so a suggestion of waving a magic wand and replacing it within one or even two parliaments does not stand up to critical analysis. National Insurance, by the way, was introduced by Winston Churchill.
Your idea is to make work pay by making the poor, poorer is an interesting concept. Perhaps stand for parliament on that platform and like IDS bring in new legislation to replace Universal Credit.
Universal credit was a step in the right direction, but only a partial step and the taper is what causes the poverty trap that means people think its not worth working, because its not for them.
Universal credit was introduced in one Parliament, so its successor can be. Universal credit was announced in 2010, legislated for in 2012 and began to be rolled out in 2013 so there's absolutely no reason why it can't be replaced in one, let alone 2, Parliaments.
The solution is elegant in its simplicity, but will piss off many vested interests. Just as UC merged many benefits together, we need to do the same with the tax system. Merge UC, Income Tax and National Insurance into one system.
UC has taken us partway there. Time to finish the job. Merge UC with Income Tax and NI so that there's only one income-related tax rather than multiple taxes/tapers that trap people in poverty.
That way work pays and people will work, because its in their own interests to do so.
No, merge income tax with UC and you will just encourage dependence on the latter from payers of the former for life.
NI should be ringfenced for JSA and the state pension and NI credits scrapped so we finally start to shift towards a more contributory welfare system. We can then start funding more healthcare from social insurance as most OECD nations do too
You are pigheaded and completely wrong.
Listen to anyone who doesn't work or only works minimal hours and ask them truthfully why that is and they'll tell you - its not worth them working more.
That's because they have to pay taper and Income Tax and National Insurance and ... if they work.
Have only one flat tax rate, no tapers, and people will look at extra employment and think that they get to keep what they work if they work . . . so they will do so, because its in their own best interest to do so.
People do what suits them best. If you make it worthwhile not to work, don't complain when people don't work.
No, universal credit was supposed to ensure that as you earnt more you didn't lose all your benefits at the same time.
A flat tax will of course benefit the highest earners the most as it effectively ends higher rate and additional rate income tax and higher rate NI, so you will get less income from them and therefore will have to look at which cuts to public services and welfare you will have to make as a result.
It would make next to no difference to lower earners as they would never reach the higher rate threshold most likely anyway and if they are earning more a tax rate of 20% would not make much difference either if benefits were also withdrawn gradually do rather than ended all at once as their income rose.
End JSA and the state pension which are based on NI contributions and just have UC and state pension credit and you make it more likely some will largely be dependent on the state for life and often by choice
Don't be farcical.
Low earners are on a combined tax rate of 55% taper, plus 20% income tax, plus 8% National Insurance.
What rate are higher earners on?
Higher earners are on 40% income tax, the highest rate earners on additional rate of 45% and up to 10% NI.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Yeah, that's all they're paying. An absolute pittance on marginal income gains compared to what those on UC face.
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
A lot of people on UC pay no tax at all as I have shown you.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Oh for f***s sake, that's not the f***ing problem and you know it.
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
You don't lose all your benefits as you have just shown, otherwise it would be 100% taper straight away.
After you hit the threshold it is virtually a 100% combined taper yes, especially when you add in extra costs, which is why people stop at the threshold.
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
45% of benefits kept even at that threshold is not 'virtually' a 100% combined taper at all.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Where the hell do you get 45% kept? Can you not add up?
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
If we had the US model they would get 100% taper as they would get no benefits at all beyond 6 months of unemployment as I said and they would either find paid work, find a food bank or starve.
Even the unemployment benefits for that 6 months will only be received if they have made enough insurance contributions from previous employment.
But we don't have the US model, we have the UK model where we tell people that if they work more than minimum time the Treasury will tax them at almost 100% rate for doing so on any marginal income above the minimum.
So millions don't work more than the minimum, because people are rational human beings.
Fix it. We don't need to just say "we're better than America on one metric", we can do better than we are today. Do you want people who can to work full time or not? If you do, they need to be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
Which either comes from taxpayers on average income and above paying for more in work benefits for the lower paid or even lower taxes for the lowest earners which in turn means public service cuts to fund them
Or it comes from reforming the cliff edges so that those on minimum hours find it worthwhile to work full time thus the Treasury gets extra taxes from those people changing their actions and the state cuts its costs.
And working full time is good for health too, so costs on the NHS come down as people aren't playing the system driving themselves sick and living off benefits.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
So hybrid cars will be banned as will petrol and diesel cars then by 2030 under Ed Miliband's wonderful new plans.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
Banned? You’re suggesting the police will come and confiscate them?
Silly boy.
It will be illegal to produce new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars from 2030 under Miliband's plans yes
It’s depressing. And funny at the same time. You know for a fact that “banned” is not the same as “millions and millions and millions of these cars continuing to be driven for decades more”. You know for a fact that this policy was created by your own party. By your own Prime Minister. As voted for and supported by you.
And here you are. Spouting idiocy like “banned .” Because of your abject fear that Reform have already supplanted your party in the anyone listening and having any relevance race.
My modest proposal is to ban the sale of petrol and diesel after 2035. Manufacturers and drivers can plan accordingly and there will be market-driven solutions.
We have a relative staying over Christmas. I'm not sure I shall be able to post here tomorrow, let alone do the Christmas crossword, which I usually enjoy. If I don't appear here in the next couple of days, then I'd like to wish every one Merry Christmas.
And a very Happy Christmas to you, too.
(I shall probably be able to sneak away from goose prep long enough to drop in tomorrow. First time I've cooked it, so any tips appreciated.)
As others have noted, cooking goose is mainly about managing the copious quantities of fat that result.
The only cooking tip is the legs and breast cook at different rates so some recipes recommend removing the legs and cooking them separately
Ha ! Already gut the butcher to do that. And have acquired a second smaller roasting tin to transfer surplus fat into ( & possibly roast veg in it). Anything else I need to watch out for ?
You may have enough to do a traditional chip pan on Boxing Day.
My late mother loved goose - partly for the fat to roast potatoes in. IANAE so I am not sure if you can get enough fat for the spuds off the same goose as is eaten with the potators, but others on PB will know.
For now I've started on a large pan of cranberries for sauce. Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
Red wine, surely?
Did whisky last year (stir in after cooking) and it was ace.
Surprises me a bit, not a combination I'd have predicted would work. But if it works ...
It was a malt. (Cheapish, as I use it for cooking.)
Getting whisky to work in cooking is a real skill I think. I've certainly not got close. Hat's off.
Cranachan is about the only recipe where I'd use whisky - I'm not sure I'd even try otherwise. Home made trifle is much better with sherry than whisky, for instance.
I think I tried something with scallops and whisky. (And other things I've forgotten). The result was dreadful.
I think for cooking, the only things I have used whisky in have been Bonfire Toffee, cups of coffee, and possibly quite heavy game dishes (eg venison with the sort of sauce that might include things like black pudding and blackberries). Would it work with Haggis?
But TBH I have been pretty much completely off whisky since Alex Salmond & Friends offended me quite seriously with anti-English rhetoric before the referendum. Back in the day I used to enjoy small amounts of single malts like Glen Scotia and Auchentoshan.
Comments
I had a little read around Panama when this came up, and their PPP GDP is in the $40k ballpark. Mexico is ~$25k. USA is ~$84k. Canada is ~$63k (same as UK).
$40k PPP GDP is getting close to being on a par with much of Eastern Europe which has joined the EU eg Romania at $47k. In Europe afaics there is a sharp dividing line between EU and not-yet-EU.
Poorer and middle income countries catching up has been happening before our eyes for 3 or 4 decades. IMO where it goes from here depends on political, rule of law and stability, and external policies in the countries which have made the best progress.
The USA will wake up one day sometime in the next 25 years, and find it has a continent of essentially near-equals on it's doorstep quite capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to reject the Monroe Doctrine. How it decides to behave will give us a measure of the USA.
Stats like murder rate, road safety, emissions, and a lot of others, may be the ones to watch next. I don't think the Usonian "Wild West" model will compete in the very long term.
Hopefully the former will gradually lead to less need for the likes of the latter after that 5 year time period
No. It is because everyone senior is on holiday and the junior staff left are mindlessly aping American news outlets.
It's a kind of ultra cynicism that's actually naive and invites rank exploitation.
Lowest earners on £12,570 or less will pay no income tax and no National Insurance at all
Anyone working just 21 hours a week on minimum wage will be paying 20% Income Tax and 8% NI and 55% Taper on everything they earn extra if they work any more hours than that.
And you still struggle to understand why people don't want to work more hours than that? Gee, I wonder why it is? 🤦♂️
We have a 21st century global world. Our continent is irrelevant, millions who live here weren't even born on this continent. Our language matters more than our continent.
Our peers are the other English speaking developed nations.
I hope it’s a cycle but how much damage will be done at the low point of the cycle?
The chap behind the counter at my local Travis Perkins has a place in Florida.
Looking around, numbers of Brits resident in Florida are getting on for 100k. Plus holiday home owners.
Strict limit on CO2 emissions would mean popular models can no longer be sold"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/24/best-selling-hybrids-to-be-banned-from-2030-under-net-zero/
The chap behind the counter at my local Travis Perkins has a place in Florida.
Looking around, numbers of Brits resident in Florida are getting on for 100k. Plus holiday home owners.'
Especially in winter
Most polls have it already losing its majority and even the Opinium you champion has Labour scraping home with the loss of nearly 100 Labour MPs
Tony Blair's government had many, many faults (too numerous to mention here) but they had one good idea which was the 'Nudge Unit' or Behavioural Insights. Changing the underlining system without assessing not just the Impact Assessment but the Behavioural assessment would go a long way to moving the change along.
For example, Housing Benefit or Housing Element is paid at an individual rate that encourages couples to live apart. Fatherless households are not necessarily fatherless. This is a areas that needs looked at before you get into the some of the other areas such as Limited Capability for Work. It is paid both to the Social Landlords and to private ones too but only Social Landlords are obliged to make rents affordable and their properties to the Decent Homes standard. So if Housing Element was only paid to Social Landlords there would be enough income to underpin a growth in affordable properties to a decent standard. Private landlords being the highly rational economic people they are, would release rented homes to those who wish to purchase ensuring the opportunity to purchase your own home - though it will likely need significant improvement if you saw some of the private rented accommodation about.
There's plenty for the government to do without getting into generating waves or new and unnecessary legislation that bogged down the last governments.
Fine if you can afford Tesla's latest electric car or you live in an inner city with excellent public transport, a nightmare for drivers everywhere elese
In comparison 30 years ago our GDP per capita was genuinely not far off the USA, and considerably ahead of Canada, Australia and NZ rather than being behind the former two.
Even those on 21 hours a week minimum wage work see the clear majority of any extra income they earn not taxed and can still keep almost half their UC benefits now as well
Yes work a minimum amount of hours and you get to keep what you work for and your benefits.
Do any more than the minimum and you lose your benefits and get taxed.
So people don't do more than the minimum.
Telling people you can work a few hours but we'll punitively take all your income off you if you work more than that means people won't work any more than the minimum because they're entirely rational. Then you wonder why people aren't working. 🤦♂️
Do you want people on UC to stay doing next to no hours so they can get maximum benefits and not pay taxes? Or do you want them to work full time? If you want them to work full time, they need a reason why they should be working full time - like getting to keep some of what they work for.
However most UK voters, outside of Thatcherite Tories and Reform rightwingers don't want to become the US
Do you want them stopping at the threshold claiming the maximum amount of benefits for the minimum amount of work, or do you want them to work full time?
What else should they be leading with?
There's a difference.
See also DA's post at 0933Z.
Silly boy.
Debating whether to fortify with brandy or whisky this year...
(Literally the single easiest thing to cook, and will keep for at least 6 months in the fridge.)
Their trouble is that they are a 20th century party with 19th century thinking. I think Starmer and Reeves have done an incredible job to polish the brasswork and sell us their steam engines, but it's all wrong.
The Tories are what? An 18th century party with some 20th century thinking, but a mindset from the 12th century.
The LDs - lost at sea
Greens - lost
Reform - euthanasia for the thinking man
How hard can it be to assemble something resembling thought and make a political argument for it?
Many people who "can't do Maths" turn into freaking Rain Man when it comes to being able to work out the optimal way to get the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of work.
Which is hardly shocking when taxes go from 0 to almost 100%, that people choose to stop working when it does.
Instead of having a 75% plus marginal tax rate, merge UC, NI and Income Tax and have a flat and consistent 25% tax rate at the bottom with no taper and people would think that they'd keep three quarters of any extra they earn which would be worthwhile doing so more people would voluntarily work full time with the Treasury then net getting a quarter of that extra effort being better than not getting any of it and paying them not to work instead.
I’ve sat across a desk, from people who are in this situation. By the time you factor in travel, wear on clothing (many of these jobs are hard on footwear)….
(Cheapish, as I use it for cooking.)
They were great for keeping people on the public footpath that ran alongside the paddock, rather than hoping over and trespassing.
The only real problems was idiots letting their dogs of their leads, and friendly little Fido was just as addicted to chasing as killing as most dogs in history when the chance presents itself. We had a few killed, and several moronic owners who scarpered, whilst perhaps thinking of themselves as honest citizens.
we also had one for Christmas sometimes. Sarah Palin could explain how to do the "fun", as she called it.
But I am staying traditional this year I think.
1) melt a big bar of chocolate in a Pyrex bowl over boiling water
2) roll some strawberries in it
3) put them on a baking sheet on the fridge to set. The baking sheet stops them sticking.
Or as I said earlier if you like the US model so much we could just scrap universal credit entirely, so you get 6 months of unemployment benefits only and then you either work or starve and try and queue at the foodbank (with a few foodstamps if you are lucky and have children)
Add Income Tax, NI and Taper together.
There, that is most bases covered who else needs a party we have missed?
Always the official start of xmas proper for me. Mince pie, cup of tea or maybe a glass of port, and finish wrapping presents with radio on. Marvellous.
Might pop back later but if not:
Merry Christmas everyone!
Anyway night all - off to do stuff.
Even the unemployment benefits for that 6 months will only be received if they have made enough insurance contributions from previous employment.
And here you are. Spouting idiocy like “banned .” Because of your abject fear that Reform have already supplanted your party in the anyone listening and having any relevance race.
EG my wife has a colleague who works 3 days a week while the kids are at school.
She could work 5 days a week while the kids are at school without needing childcare, but if she did she'd "lose her benefits" and be taxed and have to pay for bus fare on the extra days worked. After taper and taxes the extra bus fare eats what's left so what's the point in her working the extra days?
So millions don't work more than the minimum, because people are rational human beings.
Fix it. We don't need to just say "we're better than America on one metric", we can do better than we are today. Do you want people who can to work full time or not? If you do, they need to be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
The "ban" is actually an option for an emissions limit at 115 g/km CO2, which they would have until 2030 to meet (assuming that is the outcome), so it isn't a ban. It isn't a plan either, as it is a consultation - and this Govt has listened assiduously to representation so far, for example in the Planning Proposals.
115 g/km CO2 is very close to what my huge 2018 diesel estate, which does 0-60 in under 9 seconds, tows 2 tons, and tops out at 135mph, puts out (119, iirc).
The only exact model they cite is a Range Rover Evoque, at 168 g/km CO2, and I'm sure can be re-engineered for better emissions in 5 years. They are pretending it can't be improved, which is balls. If it needs a slightly smaller engine, or it means that the Micropenis Bros or Katie Price drive around a little more slowly so they have time to see what they are doing - good.
The article documents that the industry are welcoming the consultation.
This is the Telegrunt on an archaeological expedition to find the Neanderthal version of the Conservative Party, and fluff some RefUKers.
Here's the whole piece.
https://archive.is/20241224124530/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/24/best-selling-hybrids-to-be-banned-from-2030-under-net-zero/
And here's the consultation.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/676aae90be7b2c675de30a1f/phasing-out-the-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-from-2030-and-support-for-the-zero-emission-transition.pdf
Internationally is another story though, there’s the potential to massively elevate a sport not taken seriously by the vast majority of the world, into something that’s a great event to watch either on TV on live in the crowd.
Formula E, dare I say it, has suffered from the product itself being a steaming pile of crap, although this will improve with the next-gen cars. Their fan base are generally not otherwise motorsport fans, which means they need to prioritise eyeballs over income ie by being on terrestrial TV.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=23&LAB=29&LIB=11&Reform=22&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
Techne gives a loss of 101 Labour seats and a hung parliament, Find Out Now gives a loss of 123 Labour MPs and a hung parliament.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=26&LAB=27&LIB=12&Reform=21&Green=7&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=23&LAB=26&LIB=11&Reform=25&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
MoreinCommon meanwhile gives a loss of 107 Labour seats and a hung parliament.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=26&LAB=26&LIB=13&Reform=19&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
All of the above results for Labour would be worse than the 91 seats Brown lost in 2010 and the 60 seats Corbyn lost in 2019 and the 60 seats Foot lost in 1983.
So nothing at all for Sir Keir to smile about. Indeed if we had PR on the Techne and FindOutNow polls we would be heading for a Tory and Reform governmet
And working full time is good for health too, so costs on the NHS come down as people aren't playing the system driving themselves sick and living off benefits.
You could call it the Laffer Curve.
But TBH I have been pretty much completely off whisky since Alex Salmond & Friends offended me quite seriously with anti-English rhetoric before the referendum. Back in the day I used to enjoy small amounts of single malts like Glen Scotia and Auchentoshan.
Leon banned.
HY wrong on two arguments simultaneously.