Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Politicalbetting/Polling Matters podcast: Conser
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Politicalbetting/Polling Matters podcast: Conservative Conference special
Polling Matters is back and Keiran discusses the Tory Party conference with Asa Bennett of the Telegraph and Rob Vance. Just how strong are the Conservatives right now? Who succeeds David Cameron? And what will the London Mayoral race tell us about the wider political situation in Westminster in the longer term?
0
Comments
Under tax credits the worker has a marginal tax rate of 80% which is a cap on income.
Under the living wage the worker has a marginal tax rate of 32% which is so much better for them.
As I recall it was Tony Benn's father who was made a Viscount, in the era before life peerages, in thanks for political services rendered. The Wedgewood-Benn's were not blue blooded aristocrats.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/10/nhs-workers-from-abroad-coming-over-here-saving-our-lives
All ears, but no eyes or sense.
If not an accident, then on purpose, obviously.
If the multiple incursions are accidental, then it doesn't say much for Russian airmanship, does it?
Yes, on purpose. So to what purpose?
We don't believe the first incursion was due to bad weather (the second incursion has not been admitted so is subject to debate), so why? A dangerous motive has been hinted at, so what is that dangerous motive? I'm not asking for chapter and verse, merely any vague indication of what this bad thing that Russia intends to do that would be helped by deliberate incursions into Turkish airspace.
It's the same method that made Jimmy Carr a millionaire. There are lots of millionaire leftie stand up comedians who have exploited this loophole.
If not an accident, then on purpose, obviously.
If the multiple incursions are accidental, then it doesn't say much for Russian airmanship, does it?
Yes, on purpose. So to what purpose?
We don't believe the first incursion was due to bad weather (the second incursion has not been admitted so is subject to debate), so why? A dangerous motive has been hinted at, so what is that dangerous motive? I'm not asking for chapter and verse, merely any vague indication of what this bad thing that Russia intends to do that would be helped by deliberate incursions into Turkish airspace.
Probably to see if Turkey detects them flying in their airspace, testing their defences.
If you've heard the term living wage before it refers to a different thing calculated by a non government body.
Two answers seem possible to me:
Projection of power and control of airspace (edit: right up to the border).
But there could be many others.
Now back to the missiles, which you have gone rather silent on ...
Edit: DecrepitJohnL's answer above is better .
If not an accident, then on purpose, obviously.
If the multiple incursions are accidental, then it doesn't say much for Russian airmanship, does it?
Yes, on purpose. So to what purpose?
We don't believe the first incursion was due to bad weather (the second incursion has not been admitted so is subject to debate), so why? A dangerous motive has been hinted at, so what is that dangerous motive? I'm not asking for chapter and verse, merely any vague indication of what this bad thing that Russia intends to do that would be helped by deliberate incursions into Turkish airspace.
Checking Turkish reaction times and radar, probably. The same reasons Russia flies close to other Nato airspace, including ours. Then up a notch -- violating airspace with no reaction sends a warning to other countries, especially the ex-Soviet republics, not to rely on Nato to defend them.
But seriously. This bloke is leader of the Labour Party.
This is quite clearly first and foremost to the benefit of the worker who gets to keep 68% of their marginal income rather than 20%
I think if you look back you'll find I replied to you regarding the missiles, and it's you who has gone 'silent'. At the risk of repeating myself, if the US has proof of these missiles landing in Iran (and one presumes they have if they've stated as much), they can simply produce it. No difficulty there.
But I take your point.
I like the way you think Russian pilots are so incompetent they stray over into Turkish airspace, yet their missile designers and manufacturers are so brilliant they never go wrong!
The new Living Wage is a new higher band that would not have existed that goes significantly above the existing 21+ rate at 25+. This means that the current top rate band will be for just 21-24 year olds and a new higher rate is being introduced called the Living Wage for over 25s.
A good start.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/09/the-guardian-view-on-the-nhs-to-cut-the-health-deficit-start-by-spending-more
IMO the only tenable way to bridge the funding gap is a degree of co-payment. £10 to see the GP, £25 pounds for a hospital visit etc.
As well as the funding gap, it would make up for some of the more ridiculous visits that we see.
Charges for medicines, eyetests, dentistry were all very contentious when introduced, but accepted now. The alternative is restricting demand by more artificial means, such as referral management centres turning back referrals.
I would guess it was to incentivise businesses to hire younger people, to get them on the job ladder.
The idea of a minimum wage by law is that the rate should be set at such a rate that does not cause problems with unemployment. The young adults in our society are the age group that struggle most with unemployment which makes sense because they are the least experienced etc
If the minimum wage were to be uprated massively for 21-24 year olds that would likely cause major problems of unemployment. Unemployment rates are much lower for 25+ than they are for 21-24 so it makes economic sense to put the threshold at 25 ... it has nothing to do with voting.
The probem is if you are inexperienced, as young people will be, then perhaps your productivity is <living wage. As a result you will struggle to compete with older, more experienced people, for the same wages, even though as a society we would like the inexperienced to gain experience.
We don't believe the first incursion was due to bad weather (the second incursion has not been admitted so is subject to debate), so why? A dangerous motive has been hinted at, so what is that dangerous motive? I'm not asking for chapter and verse, merely any vague indication of what this bad thing that Russia intends to do that would be helped by deliberate incursions into Turkish airspace.
Checking Turkish reaction times and radar, probably. The same reasons Russia flies close to other Nato airspace, including ours. Then up a notch -- violating airspace with no reaction sends a warning to other countries, especially the ex-Soviet republics, not to rely on Nato to defend them.
Yes - a reasonable explanation. A 'buzzing' that is a fairly regular part of military interaction, even before the current tensions - something that RAF and other NATO pilots do the other way around too, I'm sure you acknowledge.
And over this, we've had talk of launching a war between NATO and Russia. It's the very definition of insanity.
UK Statistics: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Unemployment+by+Age
USA Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm
From information provided by TKW, it's clear that he's a green eye, disgruntled, time serving financial services employee who's pissed off by having to help all those rich bastards avoid tax.
The consumer element of minimum wages is tiny, almost unnoticeable and certainly nothing compared to the increase in average wages. The actual cost of minimum wages to any individual aspect of the economy is near zero.
Maybe if you want either mass unemployment as one option or a currency crash and Zimbabwean levels of inflation on another there is no limit.
The biggest objections to charges for visiting GP's are from GP's themselves.
Rightly. Collecting charges is a perenial source of problems for pharmacists.
Bit difficult to see how Corbyn and McDonnell can credibly explain this one away.
When borders are encroached, or one side things the borders have been encroached, embarrassing things happen. But they're rare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
But as you now admit, the Russian planes went over the border at least once.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html
Minimum Wage + Social Contributions
and
The Level of Employment
Labour is a commodity like any other, and demand for it is price elastic. If the minimum price for a worker is greater than the economic output they create, then they will not be employed.
[EDIT: disclaimer to add, this analysis doesn't work for politicians. They seem to get paid despite creating negative economic value.]
They have not been able to credibly explain anything away so far.
AIUI they had to overfly Iran and Iraq to get from the Caspian Sea to Syria. If they had any technical failures, they would have gone down over the countries they were overflying.
It's very unlikely that 26 missiles of a new type would have no failures. I'd believe the Russians if they'd said there were one or two failures rather than none.
As for your penultimate line: the US might not want to prove it because it would reveal intelligence assets.
The reality of minimum wages is that paying a McDonalds employee £15 an hour (as happens in Denmark) only adds about 20p to the cost of a Big Mac, the majority of costs are swallowed outside of the consumer price.
The very real factor that any service industry that requires people, on site, cannot cut back when minimum wage increases. Any customer facing service industry is almost immune to job losses. Of course there are industries where external economic factors play an impact hence why trades agreements might be a better idea. But it's almost into the realm of semantics. In the UK a £15 minimum wage would have no detrimental impact outside of a very small amount of transitory unemployment.
And of course the knock on effect of a very high minimum wage is that price differential means ALL wages are increased. This could, of course be inflationary. But fortunately we live in a Globalised World where an individual national government does not have much control over inflation.
In a telephone interview during the recent leadership campaign, Mr Corbyn was repeatedly asked by a BBC interviewer whether he condemned the murders by the IRA.
He five times refused to answer the question directly, saying: “I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides” before the line went dead.
Also, I don't think customer-facing industries are immune from job losses. Those businesses can go bust, and there is no law saying another similar business has to come in to replace it.
Yes - a reasonable explanation. A 'buzzing' that is a fairly regular part of military interaction, even before the current tensions - something that RAF and other NATO pilots do the other way around too, I'm sure you acknowledge.
And over this, we've had talk of launching a war between NATO and Russia. It's the very definition of insanity.
Insanity is buzzing a border in the middle of an active war zone.
However, if you want an economy where a practical mechanism actual stops the diminution of wages and the economy is effectively forced into areas where the wage rate does not harm it, then ideally you set a relatively high minimum wage and push it on an annual or biannual basis while taking a reasonable measure of where it stops being effective.
The thing is, which is the problem with the likes of Kraken, it is not idealogical. Minimum wage works positively at most levels. It uses the market to structure the economy to its best productive outcome.
Businesses don't generally go bust, it can be sector dependent (again why I say there is an argument for trades agreements rather than a universal minimum wage) but in most of the economy they don't unless there is criminality (again a problem for Tories). If every cleaning company has just doubled its wage bill, you have no competitive disadvantage.
You should see how his supporters are spinning it on Twitter.
It's more enjoyable to debate with someone when they tackle the substantive issues rather than attempt to score rather pathetic 'wins' on semantics or people 'falling silent'. You needlessly made a tit of yourself about the pro-Assad rally. When you wisely 'fell silent' about it, it wasn't something I was interested in pursuing in further posts. It doesn't enhance the argument. You may wish to consider this in the future.
So: if unemployment didn't rise following a rise in the minimum wage then... lo and beyond... the minimum wage did not cause unemployment.
It cannot capture what might have happened; would unemployment have risen or fallen or stayed the same if the minimum wage had not been changed?
What we do know is that in countries of similar wealth, there is a correlation.
Are they virtually spitting in the face of anyone who posts a link to it?
As for businesses don't generally go bust, that is total and utter nonsense. As many as nine in ten small businesses go bust in their first two years of business alone.
What business needs to be able to cope is stability and predictability to be able to plan credibly. What it does need is a naive fool proposing inflation for everyone as they ignorantly think nobody benefits or loses as everyone is dealing with inflation.
http://www.smf.co.uk/will-the-new-living-wage-make-up-for-the-cuts-to-tax-credits/
http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index
Looks like my info is out of date and the price differential is 8p these days. Salaries in Denmark are about 20% higher than in the UK while Big Macs are 3% higher.
Sounds like a good deal.
I could respond in kind, but there's little point. I'll just say that what you say above is wrong. If you want me to elaborate further, ask me in the morning or in a PM.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Have a nice evening.
The NHS is skint. £930 million deficit in the first quarter alone. Without further money we will get some form of rationing or co-payment. I would favour the latter, though a season ticket type approach or top-up insurance (as used in some parts of the world) are reasonable alternatives.
You can't cut inputs - you are in a global market.
You can't cut labour - you are labour controlled.
All that can be cut is Rent. So a new balance is found between Rent and Profit, instead of the current UK situation of a balance between Wages and Profit.
It is a market enforced outcome,