Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
So the incentive is to work 2-3hrs a week more to make up the difference. And in return they will get 30hrs a week of free childcare.
All these examples so far are all if such and such work 16hrs, or such and such works 20hrs...i.e if you work part time.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Unfortunately it's not popular with hispanics, whom the Republicans need to attract. They need to get beyond angry old white males. Trump will not help in that direction and diverts attention from what candidates should be talking about with his extremist statements.
Unfortunately the five time deported Mexican who shot a girl in California with a gun he stole just extends Trump's platform.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
The whole point is that work is incentivized, and people are rewarded for working full time rather than part time.
Yes, that's it. The only reason poor people are poor is because they can't be bothered or don't have enough incentives to work more.
Actually the way the system was the incentive was not to work more than 16hrs for many people...it was a disincentive to work for longer than that.
My partner did some academic research into this a few years ago, and it was truly shocking. Certain groups of people were being advised by those tasked to get them into work, not to work, due to the penalties of exceeding part-time hours.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Immigration is a big winner for Republicans, Trump isn't beholden to the donors so can run with it. Certainly making it interesting, the Donald has already made a big impression.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
Ship him off to Greece, he would have plenty more worse off scenarios to concoct.
@WikiGuido: BBC News refers to "what he called" the National Living Wage, extending their ISIS policy to George Osborne.
It's odd really the BBC in their claim to be "impartial to ISIS. Never stopped the using the term "bedroom tax" whenever they could though agreed on the website they did place the term in inverted commas.
I have a sneaking suspicion that France is going to be the one to broker the deal with Greece and kick the proverbial can down the road.
Hey Tim, did you see Spurs signed a 10 year NFL deal for 2 games a year?
Yes, I did. It's no secret that the NFL was not thrilled with Wembley, both for scheduling reasons, access, and because the field at Wembley is just terrible.
Good old BBC, saying that at least 2 NFL 'matches' a year will be played there.
The NFL is serious about growing the game in the UK.
Good luck. They'd have better luck growing lacrosse?
I note that the Women's World Cup Final attracted more viewers in the USA than almost any basketball match this season
Not only is American sports exceptionalism being roundly demolished by football, American sports are being beaten by WOMEN'S football.
Chortle.
Psst! SeanT......I have one of my offices in the USA.and they told me earlier they weren't actually watching it for the football. ( I guess there must have been some good half time adverts in their somewhere then?)
Finding trump and his Mexican views abhorrent. Personally think it's a great time to lay Osborne in the next pm market. Once the great global sovereign debt crisis begins at the beginning of October his star will soon be on the wane. I'd still be looking to back sajid javed if pushed. Tough interview on channel 4 news tonight which he dealt with admirably.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
Ship him off to Greece, he would have plenty more worse off scenarios to concoct.
That's fine, but the argument from Tories earlier was not "low-paid workers will see their income cut, but atleast they'll be better off than Greeks". The argument was "low-paid workers will see their pay rise".
'The only politically interesting question is whether Nat MPs will vote on this most English of issues, and expose themselves as utter hypocrites ("we don't vote on English only matters!"). I bet many will, partly to make mischief.'
If that happens then they wait until EVEL is up & running and have another vote.
The SNP will just vote it down at second reading, seeing that we're not getting proper EVEL.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
The whole point is that work is incentivized, and people are rewarded for working full time rather than part time.
Yes, that's it. The only reason poor people are poor is because they can't be bothered or don't have enough incentives to work more.
Most poor people work full time, unlike the cherry-picked example from Mr Islam.
Excellent documentary on the hittites on bbc4 now following on from last night's program. If only all the beeb output was off this quality! There are still decent bits around amid a sea of mediocrity!
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
Ship him off to Greece, he would have plenty more worse off scenarios to concoct.
That's fine, but the argument from Tories earlier was not "low-paid workers will see their income cut, but atleast they'll be better off than Greeks". The argument was "low-paid workers will see their pay rise".
Which they will by and large, especially full time workers. Cherrypicking extreme examples of people working the least possible hours to qualify for maximum tax credits doesn't represent all low paid workers. Plenty of low paid workers work full time.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
While using the 30 hours of free child care that's available .....
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
I used to work as an employer and would frequently be told by employees or job applicants that they were "only allowed" to work 16 hours as working more would affect their tax credits. They wanted to work no more and no less than 16 hours. While those not on tax credits were flexible and thus were able to take more hours and thus more wages.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
the global economic turn down at the start of October.
I'm looking forward to November and when you're going to start projecting this turndown if it doesn't happen in October. You sound like a perennial doomsayer projecting the end of the world.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
The whole point is that work is incentivized, and people are rewarded for working full time rather than part time.
Yes, that's it. The only reason poor people are poor is because they can't be bothered or don't have enough incentives to work more.
Most poor people work full time, unlike the cherry-picked example from Mr Islam.
I never quite know what to make of Faisal. He's certainly clever and I find his journalism very even handed but like you I suspect he is a leftie at heart!
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
I used to work as an employer and would frequently be told by employees or job applicants that they were "only allowed" to work 16 hours as working more would affect their tax credits. They wanted to work no more and no less than 16 hours. While those not on tax credits were flexible and thus were able to take more hours and thus more wages.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
This is the real reason....Universal Credit is suppose to deal with some of this, but we know the roll of that is going really badly.
Put simply, there are massive disincentives to do those few extra hours, as there are sharp reductions in things like tax credits and people moving from the benefits system / receive other benefits. It is a persevere system, one which no sane person would devise from scratch.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
the global economic turn down at the start of October.
I'm looking forward to November and when you're going to start projecting this turndown if it doesn't happen in October. You sound like a perennial doomsayer projecting the end of the world.
I'll remind you of this when the Grexit spreads to worries in the eurozone periphery in October. The next 2.5 years are going to be an absolute humdinger. Bring it on! Massive buying opportunity in US stocks for a UK investor to benefit twofold from the rose in US stockmarket as well as the US dollar. Hunchman pessimistic? NEVER!!!
Finding trump and his Mexican views abhorrent. Personally think it's a great time to lay Osborne in the next pm market. Once the great global sovereign debt crisis begins at the beginning of October his star will soon be on the wane. I'd still be looking to back sajid javed if pushed. Tough interview on channel 4 news tonight which he dealt with admirably.
Latinos now apparently outnumber whites in California for the first time 14.99 million to 14.92 million, joining New Mexico as the second Latino plurality state. In that sense the Spanish speaking Jeb and his half Hispanic son (the Texas Land Commissioner George P Bush) represent the GOP's future rather better than The Donald does
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
1992 was a pretty crazy election with Clinton getting in on 43pc of the vote and Perot around 20pc IIRC.Bush senior and his no new taxes speech! How he must have rued that over the years.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
I used to work as an employer and would frequently be told by employees or job applicants that they were "only allowed" to work 16 hours as working more would affect their tax credits. They wanted to work no more and no less than 16 hours. While those not on tax credits were flexible and thus were able to take more hours and thus more wages.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
This is the real reason....Universal Credit is suppose to deal with some of this, but we know the roll of that is going really badly.
Put simply, there are massive disincentives to do those few extra hours, as there are sharp reductions in things like tax credits and people moving from the benefits system / receive other benefits. It is a persevere system, one which no sane person would devise from scratch.
Is the roll out going badly? they held it back and are rolling out very slowly to new applicants. Its an extraordinarily sophisticated live system that will have teething problems, where the complexity of the benefits system is confined to the back office, not to the applicant.
I have a sneaking suspicion that France is going to be the one to broker the deal with Greece and kick the proverbial can down the road.
Hey Tim, did you see Spurs signed a 10 year NFL deal for 2 games a year?
...
....
Yes, the WWCF had the highest audience of any soccer game ever on US TV, beating both the baseball (no big deal) and NBA (slightly bigger deal) playoffs, the former last year.
It is very good news for women's soccer. WOMEN'S soccer.
ESPN had an 'Outside the Lines' special, featuring the business aspects of this - will it help soccer grow in the US?
The conclusions: soccer in the US is primarily a women's game - far more girls than boys play it at school - surveys say most people watched to see the US win and be patriotic than the fact they are soccer fans. Also the novelty factor: like the Olympics it is only every 4 years.
BUT - this is very good for women's soccer in the US and will help it grow.
Maybe it will one day become as popular as women's soccer in the UK.
The US men's soccer league is an atrocious product and shows no signs of improving. There is little money and little interest. The Premier League is shown here, although they got the rights for several years (about 5 I think) for less than the cost of a single NFL Monday Night Football game. There are many sports networks and they need content.
Regarding growing lacrosse, lacrosse is Canada's national sport, although de facto it's hockey.
NFL fan support in the UK is growing at a healthy rate.
Nobody in their wildest dreams imagines it will ever match soccer. But so long as the NFL can make money they will continue growing it in the UK.
Soccer is as far as ever from taking the US by storm.
Gridiron football has quite a following in some parts of Britain. I have a nephew that plays for his University team.
It isn't a game that people play for fun though, unlike cricket, footy or rugby. Apart from College and Pro leagues hardly anyone plays after high school. It is essentially a spectator sport.
The alternative is touch football. It's no surprise that full on American Football is not played recreationally. Its very dependent on technical short action plays. And thats before you face up to the injury danger and the costs of playing somewhere. Likewise Softball is very popular.
Let's all remember the OBR predictions for the next 5 years in today's budget and compare and contrast them with reality over the next 5 years. I'm sure they'll be bang on accurate. Not!
the global economic turn down at the start of October.
I'm looking forward to November and when you're going to start projecting this turndown if it doesn't happen in October. You sound like a perennial doomsayer projecting the end of the world.
I'll remind you of this when the Grexit spreads to worries in the eurozone periphery in October. The next 2.5 years are going to be an absolute humdinger. Bring it on! Massive buying opportunity in US stocks for a UK investor to benefit twofold from the rose in US stockmarket as well as the US dollar. Hunchman pessimistic? NEVER!!!
China is where the show is, Greece is a sideshow. Chinese investors lost 10 times the total Greek debt in the last 3 weeks.
Soon they will start selling all those overseas bonds they bought. It is going to be interesting!
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
I used to work as an employer and would frequently be told by employees or job applicants that they were "only allowed" to work 16 hours as working more would affect their tax credits. They wanted to work no more and no less than 16 hours. While those not on tax credits were flexible and thus were able to take more hours and thus more wages.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
This is the real reason....Universal Credit is suppose to deal with some of this, but we know the roll of that is going really badly.
Put simply, there are massive disincentives to do those few extra hours, as there are sharp reductions in things like tax credits and people moving from the benefits system / receive other benefits. It is a persevere system, one which no sane person would devise from scratch.
Is the roll out going badly? they held it back and are rolling out very slowly to new applicants. Its an extraordinarily sophisticated live system that will have teething problems, where the complexity of the benefits system is confined to the back office, not to the applicant.
Well the non-roll out then...The original plan was to have this up and running by now, instead we have a few people here and there "trialing it". I don't disagree it is incredibly complex, but the project isn't going as hoped by any stretch of the imagination.
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
the global economic turn down at the start of October.
I'm looking forward to November and when you're going to start projecting this turndown if it doesn't happen in October. You sound like a perennial doomsayer projecting the end of the world.
I'll remind you of this when the Grexit spreads to worries in the eurozone periphery in October. The next 2.5 years are going to be an absolute humdinger. Bring it on! Massive buying opportunity in US stocks for a UK investor to benefit twofold from the rose in US stockmarket as well as the US dollar. Hunchman pessimistic? NEVER!!!
China is where the show is, Greece is a sideshow. Chinese investors lost 10 times the total Greek debt in the last 3 weeks.
Soon they will start selling all those overseas bonds they bought. It is going to be interesting!
China should put in a short term bottom tomorrow and have a temporary bounce to around July 20. short term oversold. Won't be the final low though! Chinese demographics are terrible following the one patent family legacy. I'm far more optimistic about India and Mr Modi going forward.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
1992 was a pretty crazy election with Clinton getting in on 43pc of the vote and Perot around 20pc IIRC.Bush senior and his no new taxes speech! How he must have rued that over the years.
Him? What about the American public. Do you not think they must be regretting now electing Clinton? We might not have had a sub prime lending crisis for a start.
Finding trump and his Mexican views abhorrent. Personally think it's a great time to lay Osborne in the next pm market. Once the great global sovereign debt crisis begins at the beginning of October his star will soon be on the wane. I'd still be looking to back sajid javed if pushed. Tough interview on channel 4 news tonight which he dealt with admirably.
Latinos now apparently outnumber whites in California for the first time 14.99 million to 14.92 million, joining New Mexico as the second Latino plurality state. In that sense the Spanish speaking Jeb and his half Hispanic son (the Texas Land Commissioner George P Bush) represent the GOP's future rather better than The Donald does
The NY Times has it right about LA and California. Republicans haven't come close to winning California for a long time and it is now a one party state, I don't see Jeb Bush changing that. Thankfully nationally Hispanics were only 8.4% of the vote in 2012, mostly non swing states, so there is plenty of time to reverse the tide.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
1992 was a pretty crazy election with Clinton getting in on 43pc of the vote and Perot around 20pc IIRC.Bush senior and his no new taxes speech! How he must have rued that over the years.
Him? What about the American public. Do you not think they must be regretting now electing Clinton? We might not have had a sub prime lending crisis for a start.
Absolutely. Clinton repealed glass steagull which was a just awful move. But you have to remember just how elevated social mood was in 1999.any US president would have done it given the common refrain at the time was a new higher plateau and optimistic paradigm was the conventional viewpoint.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
1992 was a pretty crazy election with Clinton getting in on 43pc of the vote and Perot around 20pc IIRC.Bush senior and his no new taxes speech! How he must have rued that over the years.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
1992 was a pretty crazy election with Clinton getting in on 43pc of the vote and Perot around 20pc IIRC.Bush senior and his no new taxes speech! How he must have rued that over the years.
Him? What about the American public. Do you not think they must be regretting now electing Clinton? We might not have had a sub prime lending crisis for a start.
Clinton is probably the most popular president alive, mainly because Americans remember the economic boom and general peace and prosperity of his presidency, despite Monica. Yes it stored up problems for the future but for most Americans his presidency was the best time since IKE
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
1992 was a pretty crazy election with Clinton getting in on 43pc of the vote and Perot around 20pc IIRC.Bush senior and his no new taxes speech! How he must have rued that over the years.
Him? What about the American public. Do you not think they must be regretting now electing Clinton? We might not have had a sub prime lending crisis for a start.
How come you've put an l on the end of your name? ! What was wrong with flightpath? ! Hunchman will resolutely remain hunchman!
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
Finding trump and his Mexican views abhorrent. Personally think it's a great time to lay Osborne in the next pm market. Once the great global sovereign debt crisis begins at the beginning of October his star will soon be on the wane. I'd still be looking to back sajid javed if pushed. Tough interview on channel 4 news tonight which he dealt with admirably.
Latinos now apparently outnumber whites in California for the first time 14.99 million to 14.92 million, joining New Mexico as the second Latino plurality state. In that sense the Spanish speaking Jeb and his half Hispanic son (the Texas Land Commissioner George P Bush) represent the GOP's future rather better than The Donald does
The NY Times has it right about LA and California. Republicans haven't come close to winning California for a long time and it is now a one party state, I don't see Jeb Bush changing that. Thankfully nationally Hispanics were only 8.4% of the vote in 2012, mostly non swing states, so there is plenty of time to reverse the tide.
Indeed, but they are also a key component of some swing states like Colorado and Nevada and Florida so the GOP cannot ignore them longer term
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
Osborne bottled it again today to make the big solid sensible change i.e merging NI and IC for the employee. This was his chance to put that process in place, but nope. It will now not happen this parliament.
I totally agree it is bonkers that somebody on minimum wage might not pay IC, but they pay NI. I stated yesterday that before todays budget, somebody on £15k a year, paid £1800 in NI+IC, £800 of which is NI.
I would have slashed tax credits further, merged NI+IC, and increased the tax free threshold at the low end even more i.e. you work, you get to keep your money, no merry go round. It has a knock on affect that rich people will pay more, as NI stops at a certain max level.
Yes there are people who receive more tax credits than they pay in tax (a classic Gordon move...a tax CREDIT, which is worth more than the tax paid), but they could be compensated through over means.
'The only politically interesting question is whether Nat MPs will vote on this most English of issues, and expose themselves as utter hypocrites ("we don't vote on English only matters!"). I bet many will, partly to make mischief.'
If that happens then they wait until EVEL is up & running and have another vote.
The SNP will just vote it down at second reading, seeing that we're not getting proper EVEL.
So they will just shoot themselves in the foot again by ushering in what you describe as, proper EVEL.
the global economic turn down at the start of October.
I'm looking forward to November and when you're going to start projecting this turndown if it doesn't happen in October. You sound like a perennial doomsayer projecting the end of the world.
I'll remind you of this when the Grexit spreads to worries in the eurozone periphery in October. The next 2.5 years are going to be an absolute humdinger. Bring it on! Massive buying opportunity in US stocks for a UK investor to benefit twofold from the rose in US stockmarket as well as the US dollar. Hunchman pessimistic? NEVER!!!
And I'll remind you when it doesn't. The idea of contagion is completely out of date, everyone knows now that the idea of exit is possible and the periphery are judged on their own merits not some fantasy notion of permanence.
the global economic turn down at the start of October.
I'm looking forward to November and when you're going to start projecting this turndown if it doesn't happen in October. You sound like a perennial doomsayer projecting the end of the world.
I'll remind you of this when the Grexit spreads to worries in the eurozone periphery in October. The next 2.5 years are going to be an absolute humdinger. Bring it on! Massive buying opportunity in US stocks for a UK investor to benefit twofold from the rose in US stockmarket as well as the US dollar. Hunchman pessimistic? NEVER!!!
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
I used to work as an employer and would frequently be told by employees or job applicants that they were "only allowed" to work 16 hours as working more would affect their tax credits. They wanted to work no more and no less than 16 hours. While those not on tax credits were flexible and thus were able to take more hours and thus more wages.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
This is the real reason....Universal Credit is suppose to deal with some of this, but we know the roll of that is going really badly.
Put simply, there are massive disincentives to do those few extra hours, as there are sharp reductions in things like tax credits and people moving from the benefits system / receive other benefits. It is a persevere system, one which no sane person would devise from scratch.
Is the roll out going badly? they held it back and are rolling out very slowly to new applicants. Its an extraordinarily sophisticated live system that will have teething problems, where the complexity of the benefits system is confined to the back office, not to the applicant.
Well the non-roll out then...The original plan was to have this up and running by now, instead we have a few people here and there "trialing it". I don't disagree it is incredibly complex, but the project isn't going as hoped by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah, they kept holding back the role out because of the issues picked out in the pilot. It is now being nationally rolled out. It is possibly the single biggest change in welfare since the creation of the welfare state after the 2 WW.
It does them a service to not just blindly role it out, but to do it gently. Some things in life you need to rip off the sticky plaster, but in some things you need to ease people in. The whole spare room subsidy debacle was due to it being rolled out to everyone, and not just gradually to new tenancies.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Given your endorsement I think we can guarantee that he will sink like a stone. Dopes like Trump are a gift to Hillary.
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
NI is our last link to a contributory welfare system, the level of contributions made determines the amount of state pension and contributory JSA payable
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
Osborne bottled it again today to make the big solid sensible change i.e merging NI and IC for the employee. This was his chance to put that process in place, but nope. It will now not happen this parliament.
I totally agree it is bonkers that somebody on minimum wage might not pay IC, but they pay NI. I stated yesterday that before todays budget, somebody on £15k a year, paid £1800 in NI+IC, £800 of which is NI.
I would have slashed tax credits further, merged NI+IC, and increased the tax free threshold at the low end even more i.e. you work, you get to keep your money, no merry go round. It has a knock on affect that rich people will pay more, as NI stops at a certain max level.
Yes there are people who receive more tax credits than they pay in tax (a classic Gordon move...a tax CREDIT, which is worth more than the tax paid), but they could be compensated through over means.
As long as income tax contributions are used to determine state pension and contributory JSA entitlement
the global economic turn down at the start of October.
I'm looking forward to November and when you're going to start projecting this turndown if it doesn't happen in October. You sound like a perennial doomsayer projecting the end of the world.
I'll remind you of this when the Grexit spreads to worries in the eurozone periphery in October. The next 2.5 years are going to be an absolute humdinger. Bring it on! Massive buying opportunity in US stocks for a UK investor to benefit twofold from the rose in US stockmarket as well as the US dollar. Hunchman pessimistic? NEVER!!!
Go ahead, make our day - lay a mint on Osborne.
US stocks a much safer lower risk higher reward trade in my opinion post October.! Good night all, friend and foe alike.
Yeah, they kept holding back the role out because of the issues picked out in the pilot. It is now being nationally rolled out. It is possibly the single biggest change in welfare since the creation of the welfare state after the 2 WW.
It does them a service to not just blindly role it out, but to do it gently. Some things in life you need to rip off the sticky plaster, but in some things you need to ease people in. The whole spare room subsidy debacle was due to it being rolled out to everyone, and not just gradually to new tenancies.
Exactly right. Better to transition than to screw it up across the whole country. My town (Warrington) transitioned to Universal Credit a couple of years ago as one of the first to join the trial - our jobless rate has come down considerably since (not saying this is directly related) and the marginal Tory Warrington South seat was held on an increased majority (not saying this is directly related either). Not heard of any crisis in the town due to it.
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
Osborne bottled it again today to make the big solid sensible change i.e merging NI and IC for the employee. This was his chance to put that process in place, but nope. It will now not happen this parliament.
I totally agree it is bonkers that somebody on minimum wage might not pay IC, but they pay NI. I stated yesterday that before todays budget, somebody on £15k a year, paid £1800 in NI+IC, £800 of which is NI.
I would have slashed tax credits further, merged NI+IC, and increased the tax free threshold at the low end even more i.e. you work, you get to keep your money, no merry go round. It has a knock on affect that rich people will pay more, as NI stops at a certain max level.
Yes there are people who receive more tax credits than they pay in tax (a classic Gordon move...a tax CREDIT, which is worth more than the tax paid), but they could be compensated through over means.
Come off it. NI is not a tax. The 'I' in NI stands for 'Insurance'. It needs to be treated more as such not less.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Given your endorsement I think we can guarantee that he will sink like a stone. Dopes like Trump are a gift to Hillary.
I did not say he would win the nomination, but he could be a force in early primaries like NH, Nevada and SC
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
NI is our last link to a contributory welfare system, the level of contributions made determines the amount of state pension and contributory JSA payable
NI contributions have nothing to do with so-called "NI contributions". The link was broken years ago.
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
Osborne bottled it again today to make the big solid sensible change i.e merging NI and IC for the employee. This was his chance to put that process in place, but nope. It will now not happen this parliament.
I totally agree it is bonkers that somebody on minimum wage might not pay IC, but they pay NI. I stated yesterday that before todays budget, somebody on £15k a year, paid £1800 in NI+IC, £800 of which is NI.
I would have slashed tax credits further, merged NI+IC, and increased the tax free threshold at the low end even more i.e. you work, you get to keep your money, no merry go round. It has a knock on affect that rich people will pay more, as NI stops at a certain max level.
Yes there are people who receive more tax credits than they pay in tax (a classic Gordon move...a tax CREDIT, which is worth more than the tax paid), but they could be compensated through over means.
Come off it. NI is not a tax. The 'I' in NI stands for 'Insurance'. It needs to be treated more as such not less.
NI is a tax, no more, no less. There is no hypothecation for NI and contributory links are long since broken. It being a separate system is a dated anachronism of our overly complex tax code.
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
Osborne bottled it again today to make the big solid sensible change i.e merging NI and IC for the employee. This was his chance to put that process in place, but nope. It will now not happen this parliament.
I totally agree it is bonkers that somebody on minimum wage might not pay IC, but they pay NI. I stated yesterday that before todays budget, somebody on £15k a year, paid £1800 in NI+IC, £800 of which is NI.
I would have slashed tax credits further, merged NI+IC, and increased the tax free threshold at the low end even more i.e. you work, you get to keep your money, no merry go round. It has a knock on affect that rich people will pay more, as NI stops at a certain max level.
Yes there are people who receive more tax credits than they pay in tax (a classic Gordon move...a tax CREDIT, which is worth more than the tax paid), but they could be compensated through over means.
I'm hopeful Osborne will do this at some point this Parliament. There is only so much tinkering that can be done in any one budget and this one certainly didn't lack ambition. A merging of NI with general taxation is long, long overdue but would be a major change and is probably worth full consideration as a key piece of its own budget. Throwing it into this one may have been a bridge too far - though I'd have been pleased if it did happen.
Osborne (or his successor) still has four more budgets to come. Hopefully at some point this Parliament this mess will be cleared up.
Trump takes the lead by 4 points for the first time in a poll. His war against Mexico is very popular with republican voters, and the debates (which he will probably dominate) are only a month away.
Trump certainly has the populism to appeal to the Tea Party crowd, he offers a real challenge to Jeb Bush, if not to Hillary. I think Jeb will still win the nomination but Trump could well have a platform to go 3rd party in the general and he has the money to do so too
Am very much favoring the idea that there will be a 3rd party candidate in the US presidential elections next year. The 3rd party cycle looks very good for 2016 and Boehner is just pure evil in my book seeking to maintain an iron grip on the party. His treatment of Ron and Rand Paul in particular had been nothing short of disgraceful. Am expecting a tea party mark 2 to assert itself one we get past the global economic turn down at the start of October.
Indeed and the last time we had a Bush v Clinton battle in 1992 we had a major third party candidate then too in Ross Perot
1992 was a pretty crazy election with Clinton getting in on 43pc of the vote and Perot around 20pc IIRC.Bush senior and his no new taxes speech! How he must have rued that over the years.
Him? What about the American public. Do you not think they must be regretting now electing Clinton? We might not have had a sub prime lending crisis for a start.
How come you've put an l on the end of your name? ! What was wrong with flightpath? ! Hunchman will resolutely remain hunchman!
All sorts of problems as far as I could tell with passwords (forgotten? don't think so but not sure) coinciding I think new PC and new router or whatever it was (I have no real idea) so just relogged in with as close a name as the previous one. Not trying to hide myself. However to be honest this board is not showing much maturity these days. Little seems to have been learned from the last election. Anyone worrying about the nitty gritty of this budget, in the manner of the ever hopeful Maguire, really needs to have their Licence To Bet revoked. OGH is perhaps showing signs of coming round after waking from his bad dream. He suggests looking forward to Acting Leader of the Opposition Watson in 2020. Precient. Unless the real Leader shows signs of growing up that is.
Example of how bonkers the system was in 2008 (and still is)...
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
NI is our last link to a contributory welfare system, the level of contributions made determines the amount of state pension and contributory JSA payable
NI contributions have nothing to do with so-called "NI contributions". The link was broken years ago.
No, you have to have made 2 years of NI contributions to claim contributions based JSA regardless of savings and how much state pension you get is also based on how many NI contributions you have made
This is part of the logic behind increasing income tax thresholds. Now someone on say £7000 won't pay any marginal income tax whereas Brown was taking 20% marginal income tax off them.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
Osborne bottled it again today to make the big solid sensible change i.e merging NI and IC for the employee. This was his chance to put that process in place, but nope. It will now not happen this parliament.
I totally agree it is bonkers that somebody on minimum wage might not pay IC, but they pay NI. I stated yesterday that before todays budget, somebody on £15k a year, paid £1800 in NI+IC, £800 of which is NI.
I would have slashed tax credits further, merged NI+IC, and increased the tax free threshold at the low end even more i.e. you work, you get to keep your money, no merry go round. It has a knock on affect that rich people will pay more, as NI stops at a certain max level.
Yes there are people who receive more tax credits than they pay in tax (a classic Gordon move...a tax CREDIT, which is worth more than the tax paid), but they could be compensated through over means.
Come off it. NI is not a tax. The 'I' in NI stands for 'Insurance'. It needs to be treated more as such not less.
NI is a tax, no more, no less. There is no hypothecation for NI and contributory links are long since broken. It being a separate system is a dated anachronism of our overly complex tax code.
''The clearest example of an hypothecated tax in the UK tax system is National Insurance contributions (NICs), the great bulk of which are automatically spent on social security benefits.'' (from the IFS) file:///home/chronos/u-5bc2250e420291ab3e8bc6a318ad30f302dee10c/Downloads/SN01480.pdf
I think the more unemployed we have then those in work should pay more NI to pay or the benefits and when unemployment falls then the rate should fall. We need more 'insurance' not more 'tax'. More recognition of regulators in the economy not less.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
I used to work as an employer and would frequently be told by employees or job applicants that they were "only allowed" to work 16 hours as working more would affect their tax credits. They wanted to work no more and no less than 16 hours. While those not on tax credits were flexible and thus were able to take more hours and thus more wages.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
My daughter worked with someone just like that. She would only work certain hours but that's it not a minute more despite it being available. She did once and was desperate for her time sheet not to show it.
The Benefits in Britain" series a few weeks ago had a young couple unmarried living together she in part time work he was on JSA. The fact that one week she was listed as working 15 minutes over meant that under the rules he lost all his bennies for a couple of weeks that month. Like the girl said she would have no problem if the 15 minutes had been deducted from his JSA or even more if she worked more. I am not commenting either way on the position of the couple but only of the insanity of a system introduced by a Labour government that prevented her taking more work and the consequences of her doing so if she did.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam 5h5 hours ago So @resfoundation "A low earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
How about working 30 hours?
Are their employers going to suddenly be hit by a wave of benevolence and give them more hours?
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
I used to work as an employer and would frequently be told by employees or job applicants that they were "only allowed" to work 16 hours as working more would affect their tax credits. They wanted to work no more and no less than 16 hours. While those not on tax credits were flexible and thus were able to take more hours and thus more wages.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
My daughter worked with someone just like that. She would only work certain hours but that's it not a minute more despite it being available. She did once and was desperate for her time sheet not to show it.
The Benefits in Britain" series a few weeks ago had a young couple unmarried living together she in part time work he was on JSA. The fact that one week she was listed as working 15 minutes over meant that under the rules he lost all his bennies for a couple of weeks that month. Like the girl said she would have no problem if the 15 minutes had been deducted from his JSA or even more if she worked more. I am not commenting either way on the position of the couple but only of the insanity of a system introduced by a Labour government that prevented her taking more work and the consequences of her doing so if she did.
I think this is one of the problems that the Universal Credit is designed to solve, unless I am mistaken?
Time will tell.....but at least Osborne's plan comes with a Corporation Tax cut to help pay for it, while it was widely believed Miliband/Balls planned a Corporation Tax increase(the pledge was 'maintain the lowest rate in the G7' - which considering the next lowest is 27% gave them HUGE wiggle room) - a wage increase with a tax cut for those paying for it has more of a chance of working than a wage increase AND a tax increase.....
Comments
All these examples so far are all if such and such work 16hrs, or such and such works 20hrs...i.e if you work part time.
Unfortunately the five time deported Mexican who shot a girl in California with a gun he stole just extends Trump's platform.
EU policy in a nut shell.
My partner did some academic research into this a few years ago, and it was truly shocking. Certain groups of people were being advised by those tasked to get them into work, not to work, due to the penalties of exceeding part-time hours.
It's odd really the BBC in their claim to be "impartial to ISIS. Never stopped the using the term "bedroom tax" whenever they could though agreed on the website they did place the term in inverted commas. Psst! SeanT......I have one of my offices in the USA.and they told me earlier they weren't actually watching it for the football. ( I guess there must have been some good half time adverts in their somewhere then?)
Underemployment is a pretty chronic feature of the economy atm, the fact that PBTories assume that anyone working part-time is doing so out of choice is quite telling in itself.
Tax credits as Brown implemented were a Byzantine system where people didn't feel comfortable working any more than 16 hours. It is frequently employees and not employers restricting the hours they work as a result.
Put simply, there are massive disincentives to do those few extra hours, as there are sharp reductions in things like tax credits and people moving from the benefits system / receive other benefits. It is a persevere system, one which no sane person would devise from scratch.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/08/viva-california-latinos-now-outnumber-whites/
Likewise Softball is very popular.
Soon they will start selling all those overseas bonds they bought. It is going to be interesting!
Listening to the Chancellor's speech, you might think he was encouraging low-paid people to work hard, but his actions will penalise them for doing so with extortionate tax rates.
What it all boils down to is that people earning about £6,420 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget2008/2786004/Budget-2008-Chancellors-poverty-of-new-ideas.html
*70% tax rate for people wanting to work the odd hour or two more than roughly 20hrs a week.
The NY Times has it right about LA and California. Republicans haven't come close to winning California for a long time and it is now a one party state, I don't see Jeb Bush changing that. Thankfully nationally Hispanics were only 8.4% of the vote in 2012, mostly non swing states, so there is plenty of time to reverse the tide.
Ultimately I firmly believe that Universal Credit, NI and Income Tax should all be merged into a single unified system. One marginal threshold rate not three. Nobody receiving benefits should pay NI etc, nobody paying would receive benefits. No merry go round of taking from Peter to give straight back to Peter.
I totally agree it is bonkers that somebody on minimum wage might not pay IC, but they pay NI. I stated yesterday that before todays budget, somebody on £15k a year, paid £1800 in NI+IC, £800 of which is NI.
I would have slashed tax credits further, merged NI+IC, and increased the tax free threshold at the low end even more i.e. you work, you get to keep your money, no merry go round. It has a knock on affect that rich people will pay more, as NI stops at a certain max level.
Yes there are people who receive more tax credits than they pay in tax (a classic Gordon move...a tax CREDIT, which is worth more than the tax paid), but they could be compensated through over means.
It does them a service to not just blindly role it out, but to do it gently. Some things in life you need to rip off the sticky plaster, but in some things you need to ease people in. The whole spare room subsidy debacle was due to it being rolled out to everyone, and not just gradually to new tenancies.
Good night all, friend and foe alike.
Osborne (or his successor) still has four more budgets to come. Hopefully at some point this Parliament this mess will be cleared up.
However to be honest this board is not showing much maturity these days. Little seems to have been learned from the last election.
Anyone worrying about the nitty gritty of this budget, in the manner of the ever hopeful Maguire, really needs to have their Licence To Bet revoked. OGH is perhaps showing signs of coming round after waking from his bad dream. He suggests looking forward to Acting Leader of the Opposition Watson in 2020. Precient. Unless the real Leader shows signs of growing up that is.
The Benefits in Britain" series a few weeks ago had a young couple unmarried living together she in part time work he was on JSA. The fact that one week she was listed as working 15 minutes over meant that under the rules he lost all his bennies for a couple of weeks that month. Like the girl said she would have no problem if the 15 minutes had been deducted from his JSA or even more if she worked more.
I am not commenting either way on the position of the couple but only of the insanity of a system introduced by a Labour government that prevented her taking more work and the consequences of her doing so if she did.