Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
"reductibus"
If you say so
My favourite subject at school, Latin, and I've kept it up. I'm fluent. I could chat away to Nero, no problem.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
You have clearly forgotten that it is 55p in the £ on top of Income Tax AND National Insurance. And potentially Student Loan where repayments begin at just £25k now, which is barely above minimum wage. Oh and Employers NICs too.
Yes people will work for 45p in the £ if that is the only option. But tell them its 10p in the £ they will get, or there is another less legal option and many will feel they have no choice to do the latter.
Stay on UC, work cash in hand. Employer faces no NICs. They do not face 90% tax.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
"reductibus"
If you say so
My favourite subject at school, Latin, and I've kept it up. I'm fluent. I could chat away to Nero, no problem.
Well I think you have it covered in terms of cheap transport mechanism to exploit the roads.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
I fit both sides of that argument. While I'm trying to pay the mortgage off, I need every penny I can earn, and a significant increase in taxation probably makes me look around for a better paid job. Once I pay it off, I will be looking at how much extra I earn on my 5th day of the week and will be thinking 'nah, not worth it'
In aggregate, it will be a u-shaped curve. Those at the bottom and top of the earnings distribution will tolerate very high levels of taxation; the bottom because they are desperate for cash, the top because they aren't really in it for the cash any more. That's certainly the case in my personal experience, and explains why trauma surgeons work flat out, while GPs work part time (roughly speaking).
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.
Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.
Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
This is a particular issue around the withdrawal of the tax free allowance: I've had several emloyees ask to have additional holiday days rather than have a pay rise that they'd only see a third of.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
Or you know claim housing benefit. is that not exactly what it is designed for.
Oh yes, because they only think to claim HB when the rent goes up?
You do realise that HB only pays a set amount regardless of the actual rent. Rent goes up - HB stays the same.
only if you are over the maximum allowed surely? so you are saying this guy is already getting maximum housing benefit, then a big rent rise, so then he has to work extra. But he is still not eligible for any kind of tax credit or UC. Sucks to be him.
At least 95% of the privately renting clients receiving HB who I meet at CAB are receiving less than their rent in HB.
Check out the Local Housing Allowance rates in your area and compare it with the average local rents:
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
You have clearly forgotten that it is 55p in the £ on top of Income Tax AND National Insurance. And potentially Student Loan where repayments begin at just £25k now, which is barely above minimum wage. Oh and Employers NICs too.
Yes people will work for 45p in the £ if that is the only option. But tell them its 10p in the £ they will get, or there is another less legal option and many will feel they have no choice to do the latter.
Stay on UC, work cash in hand. Employer faces no NICs. They do not face 90% tax.
With the increase of the minimum wage to £12.71 I suspect a full time Job on minimum wage takes you to £25k
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
You have clearly forgotten that it is 55p in the £ on top of Income Tax AND National Insurance. And potentially Student Loan where repayments begin at just £25k now, which is barely above minimum wage. Oh and Employers NICs too.
Yes people will work for 45p in the £ if that is the only option. But tell them its 10p in the £ they will get, or there is another less legal option and many will feel they have no choice to do the latter.
Stay on UC, work cash in hand. Employer faces no NICs. They do not face 90% tax.
The point I was making is that if you reduce the gain from working more hours to a handful of pounds, then that “gain” will be overwhelmed by costs.
The bus costs money. Not eating at home costs money. A coffee costs money. Work clothes cost money. Shoes…
Yes, make sandwiches at home and don’t buy coffee out. You get guys on the sites who do that… Still remember the guy who used blow torch to heat his mocha maker to make coffee…. But many do not.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
You have clearly forgotten that it is 55p in the £ on top of Income Tax AND National Insurance. And potentially Student Loan where repayments begin at just £25k now, which is barely above minimum wage. Oh and Employers NICs too.
Yes people will work for 45p in the £ if that is the only option. But tell them its 10p in the £ they will get, or there is another less legal option and many will feel they have no choice to do the latter.
Stay on UC, work cash in hand. Employer faces no NICs. They do not face 90% tax.
With the increase of the minimum wage to £12.71 I suspect a full time Job on minimum wage takes you to £25k
So those working minimum wage can face 20+8+9 +55 + Employer NICs.
We conducted a quasi-experimental field study on the Milan metro, observing 138 rides. In the control condition, a female experimenter, appearing pregnant, boarded the train with an observer. In the experimental condition, an additional experimenter dressed as Batman entered from another door. Passengers were significantly more likely to offer their seat when Batman was present.
Notably, 44% of those who offered their seat in the experimental condition reported not seeing Batman. These findings suggest that unexpected events can promote prosociality, even without conscious awareness, with implications for encouraging kindness in public settings. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-025-00171-5
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
But maybe reducing inequality is the wrong goal? It can become a a distraction from solving real problems because policy becomes focused on manipulating an arbitrary statistic.
Well it is a real problem but it's not the one and only. So you have to decide how big a priority it ought to be. For me and ilk, big. For you and ilk, not so big.
"Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases
Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."
Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"
It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.
@Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.
The possible verdict are
1) Death 2) Death
Aren't those sentences rather than verdicts?
Not quite as separate concepts when delivered by the same person.
Ah, so 1 and 2 are in sequence, rather than alternatives.
Deaths to run consecutively is quite the concept!
Popular in the Middle Ages where the executed with left in a gibbet to die.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
But maybe reducing inequality is the wrong goal? It can become a a distraction from solving real problems because policy becomes focused on manipulating an arbitrary statistic.
Well it is a real problem but it's not the one and only. So you have to decide how big a priority it ought to be. For me and ilk, big. For you and ilk, not so big.
There, talk about a cheery consensual closer.
Right wingers should be reminded of Charles I, Marie Antoinette and the Romanovs.
The Savanta London poll published today is fascinating as it's been months since a proper London poll. Reform have prospered in the capital, at the expense primarily of Labour but with the LDs and Greens also falling back. Indeed, the last two named and the Conservatives are almost back to their 2024 GE numbers with the big swing (around 12%) from Labour to Reform.
What could this mean for the local elections next year? It's interesting to hear Bromley Council's Conservative leader, when welcoming the defection of an Independent to his group, clearly call Reform as the main challenger to continued Conservative rule on Bromley and even in Newham, Reform polled 16% in a by election in a strong Muslim Ward a couple of months ago.
To be honest, between the Newham Independents, the Greens and Reform, Labour have a lot on their plate even here but it might be the anti-Labour vote will split enough for control to be retained, who knows? I have no clue as to which of the three will field full slates or where candidates will stand and that will be enlightening.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
Or you know claim housing benefit. is that not exactly what it is designed for.
Oh yes, because they only think to claim HB when the rent goes up?
You do realise that HB only pays a set amount regardless of the actual rent. Rent goes up - HB stays the same.
only if you are over the maximum allowed surely? so you are saying this guy is already getting maximum housing benefit, then a big rent rise, so then he has to work extra. But he is still not eligible for any kind of tax credit or UC. Sucks to be him.
At least 95% of the privately renting clients receiving HB who I meet at CAB are receiving less than their rent in HB.
Check out the Local Housing Allowance rates in your area and compare it with the average local rents:
Isn't that because the levels are set at the 30th percentile so people renting at the average (50th percentile) will by definition not be getting the amount to cover it?
You know the Tories have just sent me an email, they must be desperate. This is a corker.
"Or will they admit we are in this mess because of the decisions they made in their first year in office?"
I mean just Labour? did the world pop into existence in 2024?
I suspect they genuinely believe that to be true. Quite a few on here do too.
Whilst I can't deny I am very disappointed by the inertia and indecision shown by this Government I am not entirely sure how and why the electorate seem to have already forgotten the venal corruption and lazy incompetence of the Johnson years.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) often assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you get, the less shit you get.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
I'm giving up and about to plump for a job with fewer hours and less pay.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.
Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.
Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
This is a particular issue around the withdrawal of the tax free allowance: I've had several emloyees ask to have additional holiday days rather than have a pay rise that they'd only see a third of.
I think people either see a path to climbing through that tax band relatively quickly or simply give up and accept that's their income.
Which is a political problem that will eventually need solving. £100k in today's money is what £78k was worth 5 years' ago.
People gaming the system to stay below it will find themselves progressively less well off as time goes by.
We conducted a quasi-experimental field study on the Milan metro, observing 138 rides. In the control condition, a female experimenter, appearing pregnant, boarded the train with an observer. In the experimental condition, an additional experimenter dressed as Batman entered from another door. Passengers were significantly more likely to offer their seat when Batman was present.
Notably, 44% of those who offered their seat in the experimental condition reported not seeing Batman. These findings suggest that unexpected events can promote prosociality, even without conscious awareness, with implications for encouraging kindness in public settings. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-025-00171-5
Britain needs Batman!
"See, their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you, when the chips are down, these... these civilized people? They'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve."
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) often assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you get, the less shit you get.
Unless you don't have any bread, in which case you can't make a sandwich, and therefore won't be eating shit.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
Well, we shall find out tomorrow what Santa has in store for us on tax Christmas Day. I expect we’ll be hearing lots about Laffer and his curves throughout tax Boxing Day and the following fortnight.
I am now hunkering down for one of the busiest few days in my year. It’s already started with a load of pre-budget activity including quite an interesting breakfast this morning with a minister and some CEOs, but really goes mad from midday tomorrow.
Sadly I had to turn down a slot on LBC tomorrow afternoon because it clashes with something else.
I’m not at all reassured by anything I’ve heard that this won’t be yet another budget of tinkering and death by a thousand cuts, but one has to remain optimistic.
FPT: Was there anything in the Labour manifesto regarding a severe restriction in the right to trial by jury?
One suspects that the Lords will tear apart any attempt by the Commons to do so.
I'm struggling to work out which logjam (court, judge, lawyer availability) reducing jury trials solves.
It’s increasingly hard to find magistrates. It used to be done by middle class women and retired men. The current generation of women have their own careers and simply don’t have the time.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) often assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you get, the less shit you get.
Unless you don't have any bread, in which case you can't make a sandwich, and therefore won't be eating shit.
There are those spoon things, you know. In which case, 100% shit.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
We conducted a quasi-experimental field study on the Milan metro, observing 138 rides. In the control condition, a female experimenter, appearing pregnant, boarded the train with an observer. In the experimental condition, an additional experimenter dressed as Batman entered from another door. Passengers were significantly more likely to offer their seat when Batman was present.
Notably, 44% of those who offered their seat in the experimental condition reported not seeing Batman. These findings suggest that unexpected events can promote prosociality, even without conscious awareness, with implications for encouraging kindness in public settings. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-025-00171-5
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Well, we shall find out tomorrow what Santa has in store for us on tax Christmas Day. I expect we’ll be hearing lots about Laffer and his curves throughout tax Boxing Day and the following fortnight.
I am now hunkering down for one of the busiest few days in my year. It’s already started with a load of pre-budget activity including quite an interesting breakfast this morning with a minister and some CEOs, but really goes mad from midday tomorrow.
Sadly I had to turn down a slot on LBC tomorrow afternoon because it clashes with something else.
I’m not at all reassured by anything I’ve heard that this won’t be yet another budget of tinkering and death by a thousand cuts, but one has to remain optimistic.
I confess I'm very much of the same view, my friend. Another wasted opportunity via timidity and a lack of really honest discussion across politics as to how our economy is going to grow in the next decade or so.
The only easy aspect of hard decisions is avoiding taking them.
We conducted a quasi-experimental field study on the Milan metro, observing 138 rides. In the control condition, a female experimenter, appearing pregnant, boarded the train with an observer. In the experimental condition, an additional experimenter dressed as Batman entered from another door. Passengers were significantly more likely to offer their seat when Batman was present.
Notably, 44% of those who offered their seat in the experimental condition reported not seeing Batman. These findings suggest that unexpected events can promote prosociality, even without conscious awareness, with implications for encouraging kindness in public settings. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-025-00171-5
Britain needs Batman!
Nobody can see anything on the Milan underground, as they are generally all still wearing their dark glasses. True stereotype.
The Savanta London poll published today is fascinating as it's been months since a proper London poll. Reform have prospered in the capital, at the expense primarily of Labour but with the LDs and Greens also falling back. Indeed, the last two named and the Conservatives are almost back to their 2024 GE numbers with the big swing (around 12%) from Labour to Reform.
What could this mean for the local elections next year? It's interesting to hear Bromley Council's Conservative leader, when welcoming the defection of an Independent to his group, clearly call Reform as the main challenger to continued Conservative rule on Bromley and even in Newham, Reform polled 16% in a by election in a strong Muslim Ward a couple of months ago.
To be honest, between the Newham Independents, the Greens and Reform, Labour have a lot on their plate even here but it might be the anti-Labour vote will split enough for control to be retained, who knows? I have no clue as to which of the three will field full slates or where candidates will stand and that will be enlightening.
Reform should pick up council seats from Labour and the Conservatives in outer London on those numbers and the Conservatives and Greens should pick up seats from Labour in inner London
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.
Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.
Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
This is a particular issue around the withdrawal of the tax free allowance: I've had several emloyees ask to have additional holiday days rather than have a pay rise that they'd only see a third of.
I think people either see a path to climbing through that tax band relatively quickly or simply give up and accept that's their income.
Which is a political problem that will eventually need solving. £100k in today's money is what £78k was worth 5 years' ago.
People gaming the system to stay below it will find themselves progressively less well off as time goes by.
It's also such superficial political bollocks.
It was brought in because Darling/Brown didn't want to raise the headline rate of income tax and '100k' was a six-figure salary that was an easy story to sell.
We're still stuck with it 15 years later despite it being worth more like 60k in 2009 terms, because it'd be very expensive to fix, so now it's deterring work.
You can have too much of a good thing. It made a lot of sense to lift the NMW rapidly when we were short of labour and trying to entice people back into the job market. Now, with unemployment rising, I am really not sure it is a good idea. At the margins the employer will simply not be able to recover their costs so the employment will disappear. Conversely, in the public sector the cost of services will increase. In both cases the wage increase will be inflationary.
For those who lose their jobs but would have been willing to work for less this is not "tackling" the cost of living, it is aggravating it. For those on fixed incomes the cost of living gets worse as costs go up. This is pretty basic stuff and it is disappointing that the government seems to be finding it so difficult.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.
Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.
Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
This is a particular issue around the withdrawal of the tax free allowance: I've had several emloyees ask to have additional holiday days rather than have a pay rise that they'd only see a third of.
I think people either see a path to climbing through that tax band relatively quickly or simply give up and accept that's their income.
Which is a political problem that will eventually need solving. £100k in today's money is what £78k was worth 5 years' ago.
People gaming the system to stay below it will find themselves progressively less well off as time goes by.
Hm, I wonder if the holiday time had to do in particular with reducing the cost of child care, which is another major issue at that sort of life in many cases. CC isn't tax deductible (or wasn't anyway) and I remember female colleagues noting that the true rate of return of coming bacj to work was pretty poor in the short term till the sprogs had gone to school. This at a time when quite a lot was tax deductible esp for the bosses.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
You have clearly forgotten that it is 55p in the £ on top of Income Tax AND National Insurance. And potentially Student Loan where repayments begin at just £25k now, which is barely above minimum wage. Oh and Employers NICs too.
Yes people will work for 45p in the £ if that is the only option. But tell them its 10p in the £ they will get, or there is another less legal option and many will feel they have no choice to do the latter.
Stay on UC, work cash in hand. Employer faces no NICs. They do not face 90% tax.
Just face potential jail for benefit fraud if caught
It'd be interesting to do a quick & dirty calculation to see what the basic and higher rates would have been if they hadn't done all the cliff edge bullshit, and it was still revenue neutral to the Treasury.
I'm guessing something like 25p basic rate and 45p higher rate (with no need for extra top rate), and all with annual uplifting of thresholds for inflation but I'd be guessing.
The richest 1% own about 10% of net wealth. In the USA, that proportion is 31% (where the UK was 100 years ago). The global average, per country, is 43%.
The UK is only unequal compared to Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
But also - the top 10% own roughly 43% of net wealth (some sources have this higher). The 'bottom' 50% own a mere 9% of net wealth (some sources have this lower).
I don't think your claim that "The UK is not a particularly unequal society" is supported by the evidence. You're right, of course, that most other countries are even more unequal.
The corresponding figures for the US are, I think, around 66/67%, and < 2.5%.
I do wonder if the levels of inequality in the US are a politically sustainable equilibrium.
If I was rich in the US, I'd be looking at ways to reform to reduce inequality and increases tax on wealth. Before someone gets elected who does it in a more confiscatory way.
Hence socialist hammer the rich with tax Mamdani was elected New York city Mayor
"Jury trials could be scrapped except in most serious cases
Justice Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test."
Right now juries trials are effectively limited via sentencing: "sure you can take this prosecution to a Jury, but I should warn you that the magistrates court can only sentence you to a maximum of two years inside, as opposed to five years"
It's a pretty effective deterrent: even for those who are not guilty.
I propose that we remove the right to a jury trial *for anything* from MPs.
@Cyclefree gets to decide on whether they are guilt or not.
The possible verdict are
1) Death 2) Death
Aren't those sentences rather than verdicts?
Not quite as separate concepts when delivered by the same person.
Ah, so 1 and 2 are in sequence, rather than alternatives.
Deaths to run consecutively is quite the concept!
Popular in the Middle Ages where the executed with left in a gibbet to die.
On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.
Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.
I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
Not by the 1970s, the economy and GDP per capita only grew again under Thatcher
We conducted a quasi-experimental field study on the Milan metro, observing 138 rides. In the control condition, a female experimenter, appearing pregnant, boarded the train with an observer. In the experimental condition, an additional experimenter dressed as Batman entered from another door. Passengers were significantly more likely to offer their seat when Batman was present.
Notably, 44% of those who offered their seat in the experimental condition reported not seeing Batman. These findings suggest that unexpected events can promote prosociality, even without conscious awareness, with implications for encouraging kindness in public settings. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-025-00171-5
Britain needs Batman!
What happened when a heavily pregnant Batman boarded the metro?
You can have too much of a good thing. It made a lot of sense to lift the NMW rapidly when we were short of labour and trying to entice people back into the job market. Now, with unemployment rising, I am really not sure it is a good idea. At the margins the employer will simply not be able to recover their costs so the employment will disappear. Conversely, in the public sector the cost of services will increase. In both cases the wage increase will be inflationary.
For those who lose their jobs but would have been willing to work for less this is not "tackling" the cost of living, it is aggravating it. For those on fixed incomes the cost of living gets worse as costs go up. This is pretty basic stuff and it is disappointing that the government seems to be finding it so difficult.
I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that instead of repairing the economic damage that has been inflicted on us in recent years, Reeves and Starmer are doubling down on damaging things even more.
It is hard to see anything in this budget that will genuinely attract growth or encourage enterprise or talent.
They simply hope they won’t be caught out when the music stops. Problem is, we’re halfway through the last track on the album.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.
Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.
Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
This is a particular issue around the withdrawal of the tax free allowance: I've had several emloyees ask to have additional holiday days rather than have a pay rise that they'd only see a third of.
I think people either see a path to climbing through that tax band relatively quickly or simply give up and accept that's their income.
Which is a political problem that will eventually need solving. £100k in today's money is what £78k was worth 5 years' ago.
People gaming the system to stay below it will find themselves progressively less well off as time goes by.
It's also such superficial political bollocks.
It was brought in because Darling/Brown didn't want to raise the headline rate of income tax and '100k' was a six-figure salary that was an easy story to sell.
We're still stuck with it 15 years later despite it being worth more like 60k in 2009 terms, because it'd be very expensive to fix, so now it's deterring work.
There's not been a proper CoE since Brown sullied the role. Darling then failed to say what went on. Osborne was a clueless schoolboy with a new crayon set,, and the other Tories that held the role were useless. (Including Hunt, surprisingly - there were hints of him having his own thoughts)
So.... Reeves. She really has a proper opportunity to do the job well, and she's not a toad like Brown. We will see tomorrow.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.
Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.
I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
Not by the 1970s, the economy and GDP per capita only grew again under Thatcher
Although the basic rate of tax was higher under Thatcher than it is now.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
We used to have elite state schools that did that for free called grammar schools and got lots of their pupils into Oxbridge and other top universities who became barristers and judges, doctors, academics, business executives, national journalists and actors and even PMs. Labour couldn't have that though and began the process of turning most of them into comprehensives merged with secondary moderns and high schools as it was creating a meritocracy which was reducing the class war of working class and lower middle class Labour voters exploited by privately educated Tory toffs
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
I don't need to.
I was a boarder.
Based on your experiences, would you recommend the experience to others considering it for their children?
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
I don't need to.
I was a boarder.
Based on your experiences, would you recommend the experience to others considering it for their children?
At the right age.
From 14 or 16, yes. It's a great way to make friends and build personal independence in a safe environment.
Not from the age of 8 - which is when I started and was tantamount to child abuse.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I'm a case in point. I dropped down to part time after my wife went back to work after her second maternity leave. Never went back up to full time. Why do 25% more work for 15% more pay? I'm not super rich. But the presence of the 40% tax band is a big disincentive to do any more.
That got me as a keen young and single worker in my 20s. I was working for an IT firm with basically unlimited overtime available, doing helpdesk and hardware site visit support stuff evenings and weekends all of the time, saving up for house deposit and having fun.
Until one day I got hit by the 40% bug, and it was immediately “I’m not working Sundays for £7 an hour, or being on call when visiting my parents for lunch”, and after that hours were adjusted carefully to stay under the limit.
Apply the same to those comfortably off on £100k in their fifties, and it’s not surprising that many of them decide to take Fridays off unpaid.
This is a particular issue around the withdrawal of the tax free allowance: I've had several emloyees ask to have additional holiday days rather than have a pay rise that they'd only see a third of.
I think people either see a path to climbing through that tax band relatively quickly or simply give up and accept that's their income.
Which is a political problem that will eventually need solving. £100k in today's money is what £78k was worth 5 years' ago.
People gaming the system to stay below it will find themselves progressively less well off as time goes by.
It's also such superficial political bollocks.
It was brought in because Darling/Brown didn't want to raise the headline rate of income tax and '100k' was a six-figure salary that was an easy story to sell.
We're still stuck with it 15 years later despite it being worth more like 60k in 2009 terms, because it'd be very expensive to fix, so now it's deterring work.
There's not been a proper CoE since Brown sullied the role. Darling then failed to say what went on. Osborne was a clueless schoolboy with a new crayon set,, and the other Tories that held the role were useless. (Including Hunt, surprisingly - there were hints of him having his own thoughts)
So.... Reeves. She really has a proper opportunity to do the job well, and she's not a toad like Brown. We will see tomorrow.
There is something altogether wrong with The Treasury. There is with most Government departments, but The Treasury seems particularly putrid.
Even Nigel Lawson had this affair that ended up causing a recession:
Ai
John Redwood has alleged that Nigel Lawson was ignoring Margaret Thatcher's instructions and pursuing a policy of shadowing the German mark. This claim aligns with historical accounts indicating that Lawson implemented a policy of "shadowing the Deutsche Mark" without formally announcing it, which involved cutting interest rates and selling pounds to prevent the pound from rising above DM 3.00. Thatcher reportedly claimed she only learned of this policy during a Financial Times interview in November 1987 and was furious, privately describing Lawson's actions as "traitorous". The policy contributed to rising inflation and high interest rates, peaking at 15% in autumn 1989, which Thatcher believed exacerbated economic instability. Although Lawson's actions were framed as an attempt to prepare for potential entry into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), Thatcher opposed such a move and viewed the shadowing policy as a backdoor approach that undermined her authority.
The Prime Minister should be responsible for economic policy, and it's deeply damaging to have a separate power base with its own agenda - and always has been.
Led by a human rights lawyer, it - ignores judgments it doesn't like, - lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both, - disregards rights for women, - is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed) - thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying), - seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment - Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them - And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
Indeed, see e.g. Finland
Singapore and Canada get better PISA results than Finland and plenty of private schools there
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
I don't need to.
I was a boarder.
Based on your experiences, would you recommend the experience to others considering it for their children?
At the right age.
From 14 or 16, yes. It's a great way to make friends and build personal independence in a safe environment.
Not from the age of 8 - which is when I started and was tantamount to child abuse.
Our local private school used to have an advert ‘What if every night was a sleepover?’ Tellingly it didn’t also say ‘but you won’t hug your mum for months on end…’
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
You have clearly forgotten that it is 55p in the £ on top of Income Tax AND National Insurance. And potentially Student Loan where repayments begin at just £25k now, which is barely above minimum wage. Oh and Employers NICs too.
Yes people will work for 45p in the £ if that is the only option. But tell them its 10p in the £ they will get, or there is another less legal option and many will feel they have no choice to do the latter.
Stay on UC, work cash in hand. Employer faces no NICs. They do not face 90% tax.
Just face potential jail for benefit fraud if caught
Unlikely but brings us to another unpleasant side consequence.
If the choice is between working for 10p on the £ or cash in hand, then don't be shocked when many choose the latter.
Then once people have decided to work illegally, the jump between grey economy and outright criminal behaviour is much smaller.
Why work for 10p in the pound if you can work for a takeaway cash in hand?
If working cash in hand, why not sell dodgy products/drugs etc?
On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.
Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.
I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
Not by the 1970s, the economy and GDP per capita only grew again under Thatcher
Total fiction.
The actual figures are: 1960s Average growth: 2.5 % 1970s Average growth: 2.3 % 1980s Average growth: 2.5 % 1990s Average growth: 1.8 % 2000s Average growth: 1.9 % 2010s Average growth: 1.6 %
You know the Tories have just sent me an email, they must be desperate. This is a corker.
"Or will they admit we are in this mess because of the decisions they made in their first year in office?"
I mean just Labour? did the world pop into existence in 2024?
New governments blame the old ones for far longer than is reasonable, and new oppositions develop sudden amnesia upon leaving office.
Nobody can deny the Tories left the country in a mess. Nobody can deny Labour have made the mess far worse.
When Blair came in in 1997 I think it was pretty reasonable to blame the Tories as they had been in charge for 18 years. Similar for Starmer. If a new givernment can show that the problems are the result of decisions taken by the previous government then it’s fair to criticise. But at some point you have own your failures too.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
I don't need to.
I was a boarder.
Based on your experiences, would you recommend the experience to others considering it for their children?
At the right age.
From 14 or 16, yes. It's a great way to make friends and build personal independence in a safe environment.
Not from the age of 8 - which is when I started and was tantamount to child abuse.
Our local private school used to have an advert ‘What if every night was a sleepover?’ Tellingly it didn’t also say ‘but you won’t hug your mum for months on end…’
And, think what emotional damage that does to you at 8 years old
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
They have more resources so can offer a better experience but it really does depend on the child and if that experience is worthwhile. Ask the boarders on here.
I don't need to.
I was a boarder.
Based on your experiences, would you recommend the experience to others considering it for their children?
At the right age.
From 14 or 16, yes. It's a great way to make friends and build personal independence in a safe environment.
Not from the age of 8 - which is when I started and was tantamount to child abuse.
Our local private school used to have an advert ‘What if every night was a sleepover?’ Tellingly it didn’t also say ‘but you won’t hug your mum for months on end…’
And, think what emotional damage that does to you at 8 years old
Led by a human rights lawyer, it - ignores judgments it doesn't like, - lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both, - disregards rights for women, - is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed) - thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying), - seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment - Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them - And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Yes I'm furious .......
I was about to invoke your name in relation to this dismal piece of would be utilitarianism.
Pre-empted (or my powers of summoning are greater than I thought).
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
I think it’s a certain mindset that obsesses about how much tax they are paying at the top end. I’m more like you, tbh.
Led by a human rights lawyer, it - ignores judgments it doesn't like, - lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both, - disregards rights for women, - is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed) - thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying), - seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment - Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them - And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Yes I'm furious .......
A little funding would go a long way in the justice system as I'm fond of saying. Compared to big spending areas it is peanuts, and improved administration would have very immediate effects I suspect, without the need for transformative changes so beloved of governments.
I haven't seen the details of these latest proposals, I presume some combination of it's too expensive and we cannot trust people to deal with complicated matters anymore?
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
I think it’s a certain mindset that obsesses about how much tax they are paying at the top end. I’m more like you, tbh.
I can see the viewpoint but now I'm getting older and see the advantages of a shorter week because there is more to life than work even though I enjoy what I do.
Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 @EssexPR · 5h If what I’m hearing about the Budget is true, thousands more hospitality businesses are about to throw in the towel or fold. You cannot keep adding further costs to employers, & not think that insolvencies, mass job losses & price hikes aren’t inevitable.
Led by a human rights lawyer, it - ignores judgments it doesn't like, - lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both, - disregards rights for women, - is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed) - thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying), - seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment - Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them - And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Yes I'm furious .......
All I can say, is that I am hopeful this is one of those things that is floated and then gets quietly abandoned as too controversial/difficult. It does periodically get mooted from time to time, but never seems to get taken forwards.
If it does come forwards I hope the Lords (and backbenchers) rip it to shreds and do everything they can to avoid it becoming law.
Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 @EssexPR · 5h If what I’m hearing about the Budget is true, thousands more hospitality businesses are about to throw in the towel or fold. You cannot keep adding further costs to employers, & not think that insolvencies, mass job losses & price hikes aren’t inevitable.
A TSE header that I don't agree with. I'd even begun to think of him as a pinko. There are good societal reasons for taxing the rich that has nothing to do with how much revenue is collected.
Great wealth distorts behaviour as we can see in glorious technicolour in the US at the moment. The super rich are untouchable. There is very little their money won't buy. Justice power and influence for example It distorts human relationships and creates tiers of society that we could do without.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
A TSE header that I don't agree with. I'd even begun to think of him as a pinko. There are good societal reasons for taxing the rich that has nothing to do with how much revenue is collected. Great wealth distorts behaviour as we can see in glorious technicolour in the US at the moment. The super rich are untouchable. There is very little their money won't buy. Justice power and influence for example It distorts human relationships and creates tiers of society that we could do without.
The practical issue is that the super-rich often pay a much lower percentage of tax than us poor bloody PAYE employees.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
"reductibus"
If you say so
My favourite subject at school, Latin, and I've kept it up. I'm fluent. I could chat away to Nero, no problem.
On the other hand, sociable 18-20 year olds will be able to drink 8% more pints and scoff 8% more kebabs.
The era of cheap labour, high immigration and in-work poverty might be coming to a close. This is going to massively disruptive to the UK pyramid scheme economy.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Especially when unemployment is by far the highest in that demographic.
Comments
Yes people will work for 45p in the £ if that is the only option. But tell them its 10p in the £ they will get, or there is another less legal option and many will feel they have no choice to do the latter.
Stay on UC, work cash in hand. Employer faces no NICs. They do not face 90% tax.
Check out the Local Housing Allowance rates in your area and compare it with the average local rents:
https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk
https://www.rightmove.co.uk
The bus costs money. Not eating at home costs money. A coffee costs money. Work clothes cost money. Shoes…
Yes, make sandwiches at home and don’t buy coffee out. You get guys on the sites who do that… Still remember the guy who used blow torch to heat his mocha maker to make coffee…. But many do not.
Why expect people to work for less than nothing?
Or agree to work cash in hand.
https://x.com/thomasknox/status/1992527251783709046
"Or will they admit we are in this mess because of the decisions they made in their first year in office?"
I mean just Labour? did the world pop into existence in 2024?
We conducted a quasi-experimental field study on the Milan metro, observing 138 rides. In the control condition, a female experimenter, appearing pregnant, boarded the train with an observer. In the experimental condition, an additional experimenter dressed as Batman entered from another door. Passengers were significantly more likely to offer their seat when Batman was present.
Notably, 44% of those who offered their seat in the experimental condition reported not seeing Batman. These findings suggest that unexpected events can promote prosociality, even without conscious awareness, with implications for encouraging kindness in public settings.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-025-00171-5
Britain needs Batman!
There, talk about a cheery consensual closer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbeting
Before they knew it the peasants were revolting!
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-london-reeves-budget-tax-income-reform-farage-b1259544.html
The Savanta London poll published today is fascinating as it's been months since a proper London poll. Reform have prospered in the capital, at the expense primarily of Labour but with the LDs and Greens also falling back. Indeed, the last two named and the Conservatives are almost back to their 2024 GE numbers with the big swing (around 12%) from Labour to Reform.
What could this mean for the local elections next year? It's interesting to hear Bromley Council's Conservative leader, when welcoming the defection of an Independent to his group, clearly call Reform as the main challenger to continued Conservative rule on Bromley and even in Newham, Reform polled 16% in a by election in a strong Muslim Ward a couple of months ago.
To be honest, between the Newham Independents, the Greens and Reform, Labour have a lot on their plate even here but it might be the anti-Labour vote will split enough for control to be retained, who knows? I have no clue as to which of the three will field full slates or where candidates will stand and that will be enlightening.
Whilst I can't deny I am very disappointed by the inertia and indecision shown by this Government I am not entirely sure how and why the electorate seem to have already forgotten the venal corruption and lazy incompetence of the Johnson years.
So, the Laffer Curve is real for me.
Which is a political problem that will eventually need solving. £100k in today's money is what £78k was worth 5 years' ago.
People gaming the system to stay below it will find themselves progressively less well off as time goes by.
@Keir_Starmer
From April, we're raising the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage.
The cost of living is the number one issue people are facing, with too many struggling to make ends meet.
I am determined to tackle it.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1993379464516939998
I am now hunkering down for one of the busiest few days in my year. It’s already started with a load of pre-budget activity including quite an interesting breakfast this morning with a minister and some CEOs, but really goes mad from midday tomorrow.
Sadly I had to turn down a slot on LBC tomorrow afternoon because it clashes with something else.
I’m not at all reassured by anything I’ve heard that this won’t be yet another budget of tinkering and death by a thousand cuts, but one has to remain optimistic.
Delete according to taste.
So they left school 40+ years ago.
Consequently the current make up of senior judges reflects the career choices of school leavers in the mid 80s.
If you look at lawyers and junior judges it’s much more balanced and that will, of time, feed through.
The only easy aspect of hard decisions is avoiding taking them.
It was brought in because Darling/Brown didn't want to raise the headline rate of income tax and '100k' was a six-figure salary that was an easy story to sell.
We're still stuck with it 15 years later despite it being worth more like 60k in 2009 terms, because it'd be very expensive to fix, so now it's deterring work.
For those who lose their jobs but would have been willing to work for less this is not "tackling" the cost of living, it is aggravating it. For those on fixed incomes the cost of living gets worse as costs go up. This is pretty basic stuff and it is disappointing that the government seems to be finding it so difficult.
I was a boarder.
I'm guessing something like 25p basic rate and 45p higher rate (with no need for extra top rate), and all with annual uplifting of thresholds for inflation but I'd be guessing.
Vide the counter-reformation of 1660 [edited!] and the digging up of several dead Parliamentarians for court action.
It is hard to see anything in this budget that will genuinely attract growth or encourage enterprise or talent.
They simply hope they won’t be caught out when the music stops. Problem is, we’re halfway through the last track on the album.
So.... Reeves. She really has a proper opportunity to do the job well, and she's not a toad like Brown. We will see tomorrow.
and actors and even PMs.
Labour couldn't have that
though and began the process
of turning most of them into comprehensives merged with secondary moderns and high schools as it was creating a meritocracy which was reducing the class war of working class and lower middle class Labour voters exploited by privately educated Tory toffs
From 14 or 16, yes. It's a great way to make friends and build personal independence in a safe environment.
Not from the age of 8 - which is when I started and was tantamount to child abuse.
Even Nigel Lawson had this affair that ended up causing a recession:
Ai
Thatcher reportedly claimed she only learned of this policy during a Financial Times interview in November 1987 and was furious, privately describing Lawson's actions as "traitorous".
The policy contributed to rising inflation and high interest rates, peaking at 15% in autumn 1989, which Thatcher believed exacerbated economic instability.
Although Lawson's actions were framed as an attempt to prepare for potential entry into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), Thatcher opposed such a move and viewed the shadowing policy as a backdoor approach that undermined her authority.
Led by a human rights lawyer, it
- ignores judgments it doesn't like,
- lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both,
- disregards rights for women,
- is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed)
- thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying),
- seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment
- Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them
- And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
In June 2020 I wrote the attached about the last proposal to attack the jury system. https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/24/12-good-men/
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Yes I'm furious .......
Tellingly it didn’t also say ‘but you won’t hug your mum for months on end…’
If the choice is between working for 10p on the £ or cash in hand, then don't be shocked when many choose the latter.
Then once people have decided to work illegally, the jump between grey economy and outright criminal behaviour is much smaller.
Why work for 10p in the pound if you can work for a takeaway cash in hand?
If working cash in hand, why not sell dodgy products/drugs etc?
"You're a moron"
The actual figures are:
1960s Average growth: 2.5 %
1970s Average growth: 2.3 %
1980s Average growth: 2.5 %
1990s Average growth: 1.8 %
2000s Average growth: 1.9 %
2010s Average growth: 1.6 %
The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
Pre-empted (or my powers of summoning are greater than I thought).
I am in agreement.
Killing pubs and hospitality step by step...
I haven't seen the details of these latest proposals, I presume some combination of it's too expensive and we cannot trust people to deal with complicated matters anymore?
@EssexPR
·
5h
If what I’m hearing about the Budget is true, thousands more hospitality businesses are about to throw in the towel or fold.
You cannot keep adding further costs to employers, & not think that insolvencies, mass job losses & price hikes aren’t inevitable.
Controlled demolition.
https://x.com/EssexPR/status/1993317281493819434
If it does come forwards I hope the Lords (and backbenchers) rip it to shreds and do everything they can to avoid it becoming law.
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is in Abu Dhabi to meet with Russian officials amid peace push, sources say.
https://x.com/CBSNews/status/1993178350609743916
Great wealth distorts behaviour as we can see in glorious technicolour in the US at the moment. The super rich are untouchable. There is very little their money won't buy. Justice power and influence for example It distorts human relationships and creates tiers of society that we could do without.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
pyramid schemeeconomy.Especially when unemployment is by far the highest in that demographic.