If hundreds of thousands of white God fearing right wing Americans from the Deep South and white Afrikaans South Africans were illegally immigrating to the UK it is unthinkable that those on the 'virtue signalling' side of the argument today would be saying the same as they are now
I can also guarantee that those who are shouting, we can't take anymore will keep quiet.
I am not sure Carson would be welcomed though despite his views. Trump would be.
You mean as when the DM welcomed Zola Budd because she could a) win races and b) was whilte? And not too long afterwards she returned to South Africa and married, although she now lives in the US.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
Bringing people in because they are at risk does not bring more religion into our laws. That is entirely within our control. I am arguing for prioritising people on the basis of risk. And being a Christian or a Yazidi in some parts of Islamist-controlled parts of this area is to be at very high risk. Why is this so hard for people to accept?
In an area where religion does very much determine your life chances and may put you at risk, very severe risk, it is beyond absurd to ignore that fact when deciding whom to prioritise in the help we are able to bring.
Other groups, such as the ones you mention, may also be at risk. But the fact that there are so many multiple problems where last year's victim may well end up being tomorrow's oppressor, is precisely why a "let's let all the poor people in" without some hard thinking is so pathetic, lacking in morality and likely to as much harm as good.
Again, I disagree. By selecting on the basis of religion - as you keep on arguing for by mentioning 'Christians' - is putting religion into our laws. Worse, it simplifies what is an exceptionally complex situation and makes the groups you discriminate for automatically better than the ones you do not.
And BTW, I'm not arguing for "Let's let all the poor people in."
I am prioritising on the basis of risk. You are arguing that because that risk is linked to religious denomination one should ignore it. By choosing those most at risk one is not saying that they are better than other groups. One is saying that as we cannot help everyone we are targeting those most at risk.
There is something very odd about people (and this is not directed at your personally) who are all in favour of muticulturalism and the rest but apparently against helping a group in one of those cultures who face a most uncertain (at best) future. And there is something even odder about people all in favour of letting Muslim refugees in - and thereby, on your argument, letting religion into our laws - arguing against letting in another religious denomination. It's almost as if using the word "Christian" in front of refugees immunizes people against compassion. Oh - and BTW - I would help Yazidis and Kurds too. And those Muslims who are persecuted.
We can't help everyone so we should prioritise those most at risk, that's all. Apparently, that's a controversial statement. Oh well.
Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible (you can read reports of children being tortured and beheaded for being Christian) - simply for being Christian (regardless of how devout or not they are) and not Muslim. The same applies to Yazidis. To ignore this fact is shameful. We have to prioritise and I would put these groups in a higher priority precisely because of the very high risks they face. There may well be others - groups or individuals - who are also at very high risk. But to ignore the persecution of this group - as a lot of people want to do - is to show a lack of morality and compassion.
It's almost as if some people (and I do not accuse you as I appreciate our polite disagreements) want to ignore the fact that people in these countries do suffer because they have the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time. I think this is a factor which our politicians should take into account when deciding to whom to give refuge.
Well, perhaps we're making a distinction without a difference. I favour the current doctrine (embraced in principle by all civilised governments) that priority should be given to refugees most at risk. You say, and you may well be right, that this will often turn out to be Christians. In such cases, we should give priority to them - not because they're Christian, which is a matter on which we should be neutral in this context, but because they're at extreme risk. If we find someone else at equally high risk (an atheist, say, or a Muslim with the wrong sort of belief for fundamentalists), they should get the same high priority. Someone with views that ISIS would consider uncontroversial would clearly get lower priority.
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
So you're advocating even more tax credit cuts? Brave, Rog, brave!
Cutting working tax credits does contrast with cutting Inheritance tax for over a million.
Tax Credits are complicated for many. The Mirror after the budget,made a good attempt to explain, surprisingly better than most broadsheets, when I have tried to understand the changes for my extended family.
Mr. G, food bank usage has increased every year since their introduction around 2005 or so. That includes a boom, a massive recession, a recovery and more or less normal growth as we have now. Because their use has increased perpetually, we can't really consider that a sign of government policy succeeding or failing.
Miss Cyclefree, indeed.
Before the war kicked off properly, when it was more marches and protests, there was a piece on the news about a Christian leader in Syria who was worried that the (relatively) decent treatment Christians got in Syria would give way to persecution, as is the case in many other nearby nations.
Last line: "One retired judge said the UK could cope with taking in 75,000 a year."
That retired judge won't be competing for a job with the migrants or pushed down the waiting list for a house. He or she won't be dealing with the social enclaves and integration issues that might arise.
There's also the humanitarian aspect. Money goes a hell of a lot further in aid camps than it does in the UK. We can, for the same money [and we're ahead of everyone in Europe and everyone in the world, except the US], help far more people in camps than we can by bringing them here.
Just out of interest I wonder what data the judge is using to make that decision?
BTW William Dalyrmple's book "To the Holy Mountain" about his travels round Turkey and the Middle East in search of historic Christian communities is well worth reading. Fascinating and saddening.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
Off topic - Is £6.5k for a 4 kw solar system a fair price ?
I went round to a friend's house where this price was quoted (They are looking into panels too); and the price seems fair enough to produce a decent rate of return from my own estimates... but I have seen some systems for sub £5k looking today (Are these cheap for a reason tho... ? ) . Obviously I'm needing to move quite fast on this as the 20 year guaranteed FiT falls off a cliff at the end of the year.
Good man. Go for it.
£6.5K is pretty good. I paid a bit more for mine a few years ago - when the rate of return was higher - and have never regretted it. In a few years I will be earning pure profit and my bills are lower too. I'd make sure the company is a reputable one, though.
Off topic - Is £6.5k for a 4 kw solar system a fair price ?
I went round to a friend's house where this price was quoted (They are looking into panels too); and the price seems fair enough to produce a decent rate of return from my own estimates... but I have seen some systems for sub £5k looking today (Are these cheap for a reason tho... ? ) . Obviously I'm needing to move quite fast on this as the 20 year guaranteed FiT falls off a cliff at the end of the year.
Good man. Go for it.
£6.5K is pretty good. I paid a bit more for mine a few years ago - when the rate of return was higher - and have never regretted it. In a few years I will be earning pure profit and my bills are lower too. I'd make sure the company is a reputable one, though.
Good for you too, Cyclefree. At least, we agree on something !
Miss Cyclefree, probably a nice extra if/when you sell, too.
Mr. Floater, probably making it up, I would've guessed.
If the Government said we'd take 75,000, the bishops and judges would be advocating a quarter of a million.
There are some posters on here who would criticise the government no matter how many they agreed to take. It is pathetic how people are unable to put politics aside for one moment and actually suggest solutions which would deliver long-term results.
Off topic - Is £6.5k for a 4 kw solar system a fair price ?
I went round to a friend's house where this price was quoted (They are looking into panels too); and the price seems fair enough to produce a decent rate of return from my own estimates... but I have seen some systems for sub £5k looking today (Are these cheap for a reason tho... ? ) . Obviously I'm needing to move quite fast on this as the 20 year guaranteed FiT falls off a cliff at the end of the year.
Good man. Go for it.
£6.5K is pretty good. I paid a bit more for mine a few years ago - when the rate of return was higher - and have never regretted it. In a few years I will be earning pure profit and my bills are lower too. I'd make sure the company is a reputable one, though.
Good for you too, Cyclefree. At least, we agree on something !
I paid £6.5K for my solar panels (3.7KW) in Feb this year and they have been a huge success. So far I have received £358 in feed in tariffs with two quarter to go (both will be less because of the time of year) but I have also had a corresponding saving on my electric bills. As this is a guaranteed inflation proof non taxable income for the next 20 years it is a fantastic investment
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
I call it the two child [ren] policy !
As many will not even have two children, the population will decline and , guess what, more immigration !
It's another example of victimising the poorest in society...if it's about reducing the deficit why not restrict child benefit to two children as well?
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
The poles weren't illegal immigrants?
Good point. So your problem with not taking 750k Syrians has nothing to do with numbers but to do with legality ?
Both.
And i had a problem with 750k poles as well, although that fucks your implied smear
And to butt in to your other nauseating argument, people born and raised in the UK might not like to be called Pakistanis... I'm sure there would be several people on here willing to argue with me if I referred to someone with Pakistani parents that was born in the UK as a 'Pakistani'
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Incidentally, I'm still hoping to find data for the suggested increases in NLV until 2020. Either that, or predicted median wages until 2020. Any one have any sources?
The result ought to be a comprehensive model comparing the impact of the last 10 years fiscal policy on the low paid.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
That was in a time when people weren't paying a third of their income on housing costs.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Because poor childless couples and singletons should be subsidising the extravagant pro-creation choices of others, right? Because that is fair.
It's the way of the world...different groups in society subsidise others. Healthy people subsidise the infirm, workers are currently subsidising pensioners but hey...that's just how it is.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
Indeed, the unbelievable stymie to aspiration aside would be a massive vote loser for Labour. Most of the 20 something graduates I know would be impacted by this. It would soon shock them out of leftiness.
Go on Corbo - listen to your Broxtrowe friend and adopt it as a policy!
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Because poor childless couples and singletons should be subsidising the extravagant pro-creation choices of others, right? Because that is fair.
It's the way of the world...different groups in society subsidise others. Healthy people subsidise the infirm, workers are currently subsidising pensioners but hey...that's just how it is.
So you're comparing having children - an almost entirely avoidable situation nowadays - with the unfortunate and frequently unavoidable situation of illness. Or the audacity to be old and having (at least for toped-up pensions) paid into the system for years. Nice to see the left showing its true colours.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
That was in a time when people weren't paying a third of their income on housing costs.
Mortgage rates have been at rock bottom for years now. Council Tax rises have been minimal. That leaves House Prices.
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
The poles weren't illegal immigrants?
Good point. So your problem with not taking 750k Syrians has nothing to do with numbers but to do with legality ?
The problem with taking another 750k virtually instantaneously as opposed to over a decade is that it would mean the total numbers would be 1.5 million.
I think he means investing and building infrastructure and lines for the mass production of floating wicker baskets............. Could be wrong though?
What's that glug glug glug? It's labour's moral authority on opposing the tax credit cuts. A very weak outing by shadow cabinet members when asked if they are committing to reverse the cuts.
They looked very shambolic. The more they up the anti about how unjust the changes are, the more they look ridiculous by refusing to reverse them.
Incidentally, I'm still hoping to find data for the suggested increases in NLV until 2020. Either that, or predicted median wages until 2020. Any one have any sources?
The result ought to be a comprehensive model comparing the impact of the last 10 years fiscal policy on the low paid.
The NLW is meant to be £9 by 2020. That means a 25% rise between 2016 and 2020, so compounded it must be something like 5-6% a year.
Surbiton .. would that be the Sadiq Khan who would introduce quotas for ethnic minorities..then yes..he would also be classed as an anti British Muslim in some quarters..probably the quarter that votes for the Labour party..or did..
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
What was the employees national insurance rate in those days? It is now for most employees 12%. A party who now proposed an effective standard rate of income tax of 45 pence in the pound would have little chance of being elected. So in today's world 33% standard rate might well be regarded as excessive.
In any event the comparison of tax rates between now and any time in beyond a few years ago is, I suggest, not a useful thing to do. Circumstances were different then, what the government was expected to do and the demands/expectations of the population were not as they are now.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Because poor childless couples and singletons should be subsidising the extravagant pro-creation choices of others, right? Because that is fair.
It's the way of the world...different groups in society subsidise others. Healthy people subsidise the infirm, workers are currently subsidising pensioners but hey...that's just how it is.
So you're comparing having children - an almost entirely avoidable situation nowadays - with the unfortunate and frequently unavoidable situation of illness. Or the audacity to be old and having (at least for toped-up pensions) paid into the system for years. Nice to see the left showing its true colours.
Left?...not me. If there is one section of society that has been unscathed by the recession it is the wealthy elderly, Guaranteed pension increases, subsidised interest rates on pensioner bonds, beneficiaries of a house price boom and cuts in inheritance tax for their estates.
Re child tax credits, it's worth noting that child benefit was not introduced until the 1970s and even then was not given for the first child. There is nothing evil about suggesting that people have the children they can afford rather than expecting others to contribute to their upkeep. It's what the vast majority of people do.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
That was in a time when people weren't paying a third of their income on housing costs.
In fact, in 1990 when we bought our first property, recently the mortgage was paid off, we were paying well over 40% of our net income.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
That was in a time when people weren't paying a third of their income on housing costs.
Oh, but a lot were, Mr. JEO, a lot were - myself included. High house prices and being stretched to buy a home is not a new thing at all. Interest rates were a lot higher then too.
The difference was that the two-thirds (or even half) left over after paying the mortgage went much, much further then and one could, on reasonably modest means, maintain a decent lifestyle.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
The claim is not that they have children because of the benefits system, but that they do not consider affordability when they have children, which they should do.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
Now, you start to get to the nub of the question. What is the Welfare State for? Is it to provide support for those, who for reasons beyond their control, need help until they can get back on their feet? Or is it to subsidise lifestyles that would otherwise be unaffordable and enable unscrupulous employers to get away with paying less than the job is worth?
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
That was in a time when people weren't paying a third of their income on housing costs.
Oh, but a lot were, Mr. JEO, a lot were - myself included. High house prices and being stretched to buy a home is not a new thing at all. Interest rates were a lot higher then too.
The difference was that the two-thirds (or even half) left over after paying the mortgage went much, much further then and one could, on reasonably modest means, maintain a decent lifestyle.
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
At the rate it applies there is a 10,393.60 tax on incomes between 176,000 and 755,200 (so a 6% tax or a 1% tax) plus then the 13.2% excess. So even then the national income tax is 14.2% -19.2%, still at least 26% below the UK top rate of income tax of 45%
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
Now, you start to get to the nub of the question. What is the Welfare State for? Is it to provide support for those, who for reasons beyond their control, need help until they can get back on their feet? Or is it to subsidise lifestyles that would otherwise be unaffordable and enable unscrupulous employers to get away with paying less than the job is worth?
The problem with wages is not unscrupulous employers it's George Osborne throttling public sector pay rises for the past five years...wages go down = tax credits go up.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
If not then they should have no problem funding them without govt help. Glad we agree.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
Now, you start to get to the nub of the question. What is the Welfare State for? Is it to provide support for those, who for reasons beyond their control, need help until they can get back on their feet? Or is it to subsidise lifestyles that would otherwise be unaffordable and enable unscrupulous employers to get away with paying less than the job is worth?
The problem with wages is not unscrupulous employers it's George Osborne throttling public sector pay rises for the past five years...wages go down = tax credits go up.
I can guarantee you, without pay freezes, the number of redundancies in public sector would be much much greater than they are. Pay restraint has made a significant difference.
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Dunno, Mr. Kraken, but I suspect the impact will be very limited and non-existent in the South East. The big, in fact fecking huge, block to getting a mortgage these days seems to be actually getting together the necessary deposit.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
Now, you start to get to the nub of the question. What is the Welfare State for? Is it to provide support for those, who for reasons beyond their control, need help until they can get back on their feet? Or is it to subsidise lifestyles that would otherwise be unaffordable and enable unscrupulous employers to get away with paying less than the job is worth?
The problem with wages is not unscrupulous employers it's George Osborne throttling public sector pay rises for the past five years...wages go down = tax credits go up.
I can guarantee you, without pay freezes, the number of redundancies in public sector would be much much greater than they are. Pay restraint has made a significant difference.
Pay restraint by workers over the past five has undoubtedly been the reason for the remarkable employment rates..a case of "we're all in it together" in action. Unfortunately for those who showed admirable restraint are now getting shafted anyway as we discover that for many low paid workers find themselves "in it" for a long time yet.
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Dunno, Mr. Kraken, but I suspect the impact will be very limited and non-existent in the South East. The big, in fact fecking huge, block to getting a mortgage these days seems to be actually getting together the necessary deposit.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
I can't imagine what it must be like in those areas...we moved westwards to find an affordable home but even here in Dorset there seems precious little prospect of my children ever being able to find a home of their own.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
I quite liked Labour's idea (mentioned during the leadership contest I believe) of unemployment benefits being paid on a sliding scale according to previous income, so for example you'd get 90% of your previous income for the first month unemployed, 80% for the second month etc. It would soften the blow and allow the necessary lifestyle changes to be phased rather than suddenly needing to happen all at once.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
I quite liked Labour's idea (mentioned during the leadership contest I believe) of unemployment benefits being paid on a sliding scale according to previous income, so for example you'd get 90% of your previous income for the first month unemployed, 80% for the second month etc. It would soften the blow and allow the necessary lifestyle changes to be phased rather than suddenly needing to happen all at once.
You have to accompany that with other reductions from the welfare budget though, as it will cost more than the existing system. For some on welfare to get more others must get less.
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Dunno, Mr. Kraken, but I suspect the impact will be very limited and non-existent in the South East. The big, in fact fecking huge, block to getting a mortgage these days seems to be actually getting together the necessary deposit.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
Hence schemes like Help To Buy so you only need a 5% deposit to get a mortgage.
On the refugee situation surely the two objectives are to help out as many people as possible who are homeless, and to stop people from poor countries paying smugglers to get them to Europe. Our actions should match those objectives.
Genuine migrants accepted here of course don't care where they live as long as they are safe. Would a cheaper and more socially acceptable answer not be to build a tent city on a military base and house them there?
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
Now, you start to get to the nub of the question. What is the Welfare State for? Is it to provide support for those, who for reasons beyond their control, need help until they can get back on their feet? Or is it to subsidise lifestyles that would otherwise be unaffordable and enable unscrupulous employers to get away with paying less than the job is worth?
The problem with wages is not unscrupulous employers it's George Osborne throttling public sector pay rises for the past five years...wages go down = tax credits go up.
I can guarantee you, without pay freezes, the number of redundancies in public sector would be much much greater than they are. Pay restraint has made a significant difference.
Pay restraint by workers over the past five has undoubtedly been the reason for the remarkable employment rates..a case of "we're all in it together" in action. Unfortunately for those who showed admirable restraint are now getting shafted anyway as we discover that for many low paid workers find themselves "in it" for a long time yet.
Public sector employees will still have pay increment awards as normal. You do realise that there has been close to no inflation in the last three years?
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
I quite liked Labour's idea (mentioned during the leadership contest I believe) of unemployment benefits being paid on a sliding scale according to previous income, so for example you'd get 90% of your previous income for the first month unemployed, 80% for the second month etc. It would soften the blow and allow the necessary lifestyle changes to be phased rather than suddenly needing to happen all at once.
You have to accompany that with other reductions from the welfare budget though, as it will cost more than the existing system. For some on welfare to get more others must get less.
Of course. My ideal benefits system would look rather draconian and disruptive for anyone without a job for more than a few months, at the expense of looking after those who find themselves between jobs for a short time.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
But 30% was the standard rate in Thatcher's first term - Howe reduced it from 33% in his June 79 Budget. There is nothing excessive about it!
That was in a time when people weren't paying a third of their income on housing costs.
Oh, but a lot were, Mr. JEO, a lot were - myself included. High house prices and being stretched to buy a home is not a new thing at all. Interest rates were a lot higher then too.
The difference was that the two-thirds (or even half) left over after paying the mortgage went much, much further then and one could, on reasonably modest means, maintain a decent lifestyle.
When interest rates rise and mortgages and other costs go up, are we to moan the lot of poor householders? The whole point of interest rates rising is to deliberatly take money out of the economy, ie make people poorer, and regulate it to slow down rather than overheat. Periodically people are deliberately made poorer to sustain long term affordability. This happens because you cannot defy the laws of economic gravity. The tax credit business is matched in part by higher tax allowances (a tax cut) and the so called living wage (a pay rise).
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Dunno, Mr. Kraken, but I suspect the impact will be very limited and non-existent in the South East. The big, in fact fecking huge, block to getting a mortgage these days seems to be actually getting together the necessary deposit.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
I can't imagine what it must be like in those areas...we moved westwards to find an affordable home but even here in Dorset there seems precious little prospect of my children ever being able to find a home of their own.
If you have a house of your own then your children should be OK, providing you don't move too often or have too many children. The bank of Mum and Dad will be able to help them out.
You might also want to consider adopting a reasonably unhealthy lifestyle so that their inheritance is not consumed in nursing home fees. No need to go mad, just a modest regime of alcohol and the occasional cigar should, according to the latest medical advice, do the job. You will be saving the NHS a fortune too.
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Dunno, Mr. Kraken, but I suspect the impact will be very limited and non-existent in the South East. The big, in fact fecking huge, block to getting a mortgage these days seems to be actually getting together the necessary deposit.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
I can't imagine what it must be like in those areas...we moved westwards to find an affordable home but even here in Dorset there seems precious little prospect of my children ever being able to find a home of their own.
If you have a house of your own then your children should be OK, providing you don't move too often or have too many children. The bank of Mum and Dad will be able to help them out.
You might also want to consider adopting a reasonably unhealthy lifestyle so that their inheritance is not consumed in nursing home fees. No need to go mad, just a modest regime of alcohol and the occasional cigar should, according to the latest medical advice, do the job. You will be saving the NHS a fortune too.
You can take out an annuity to cover nursing care in old age. However I agree, if you are on an average salary, even on two incomes to buy an average house you will probably need at least some parental assistance and parents who are also homeowners
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
The claim is not that they have children because of the benefits system, but that they do not consider affordability when they have children, which they should do.
And is there any "proper" evidence that such people exist?
When interest rates rise and mortgages and other costs go up, are we to moan the lot of poor householders? The whole point of interest rates rising is to deliberatly take money out of the economy, ie make people poorer, and regulate it to slow down rather than overheat. Periodically people are deliberately made poorer to sustain long term affordability. This happens because you cannot defy the laws of economic gravity. The tax credit business is matched in part by higher tax allowances (a tax cut) and the so called living wage (a pay rise).
Quite possibly, Mr. Path, but I am a bit of a loss as to how your comment relates to what we were talking about, which was tax rates of 30% plus not being exceptional.
Looking like an all Southern Hemisphere semi finals for the first time in Rugby World Cup History. Argentina though have reached one semi final before, in 2007 and on this showing could be an outside bet to reach the final. From a British perspective given we have fought a war against one side and an unofficial war against the other in the last 30 years we may have an affection for the Irish but can probably afford to be neutral
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
The claim is not that they have children because of the benefits system, but that they do not consider affordability when they have children, which they should do.
And is there any "proper" evidence that such people exist?
Does evidence about this matter? The state considers it advisable to help parents, because children are important and being able to bring them up is important. The public have no problem with this, we were children once, we might have them or grandchildren in future. Why should the state however pay child benefit ad infinitum. Typical numbers of children are 2. This seems a more than reasonable limit to offer a child benefit. It seems more than a reasonable limit when the nation has a massive structural deficit that it cannot afford.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
The claim is not that they have children because of the benefits system, but that they do not consider affordability when they have children, which they should do.
And is there any "proper" evidence that such people exist?
Does evidence about this matter? The state considers it advisable to help parents, because children are important and being able to bring them up is important. The public have no problem with this, we were children once, we might have them or grandchildren in future. Why should the state however pay child benefit ad infinitum. Typical numbers of children are 2. This seems a more than reasonable limit to offer a child benefit. It seems more than a reasonable limit when the nation has a massive structural deficit that it cannot afford.
Actually 2 isn't replacement. Nations need to be round the 2.4 mark, so need at least some 3's.
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Dunno, Mr. Kraken, but I suspect the impact will be very limited and non-existent in the South East. The big, in fact fecking huge, block to getting a mortgage these days seems to be actually getting together the necessary deposit.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
I can't imagine what it must be like in those areas...we moved westwards to find an affordable home but even here in Dorset there seems precious little prospect of my children ever being able to find a home of their own.
If you have a house of your own then your children should be OK, providing you don't move too often or have too many children. The bank of Mum and Dad will be able to help them out.
You might also want to consider adopting a reasonably unhealthy lifestyle so that their inheritance is not consumed in nursing home fees. No need to go mad, just a modest regime of alcohol and the occasional cigar should, according to the latest medical advice, do the job. You will be saving the NHS a fortune too.
You can take out an annuity to cover nursing care in old age. ....
Can you indeed? I should be very interested to look at the cost of such a policy and the guaranteed benefits. If an insurance company can make such a scheme work then HMG should be able to as well and the fuss about long term care should not exist.
I am sceptical, however. My neighbour has been in a nursing home for about 18 months and is basically a zombie (his brain has gone but his body, aided by the NHS, lives on). His two children will get very little from his estate, once the nursing home bill is paid (its about £100 per day). What sort of insurance cover would cough up for those sort of sums and how much would it cost?
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
The claim is not that they have children because of the benefits system, but that they do not consider affordability when they have children, which they should do.
And is there any "proper" evidence that such people exist?
Does evidence about this matter? The state considers it advisable to help parents, because children are important and being able to bring them up is important. The public have no problem with this, we were children once, we might have them or grandchildren in future. Why should the state however pay child benefit ad infinitum. Typical numbers of children are 2. This seems a more than reasonable limit to offer a child benefit. It seems more than a reasonable limit when the nation has a massive structural deficit that it cannot afford.
A point made very forcefully by a left-wing journalist here:
Interesting combination of the two discussions is how the tax credit cuts will impact on the affordability criteria that is making getting a mortgage so difficult for so many families.
Dunno, Mr. Kraken, but I suspect the impact will be very limited and non-existent in the South East. The big, in fact fecking huge, block to getting a mortgage these days seems to be actually getting together the necessary deposit.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
I can't imagine what it must be like in those areas...we moved westwards to find an affordable home but even here in Dorset there seems precious little prospect of my children ever being able to find a home of their own.
If you have a house of your own then your children should be OK, providing you don't move too often or have too many children. The bank of Mum and Dad will be able to help them out.
You might also want to consider adopting a reasonably unhealthy lifestyle so that their inheritance is not consumed in nursing home fees. No need to go mad, just a modest regime of alcohol and the occasional cigar should, according to the latest medical advice, do the job. You will be saving the NHS a fortune too.
You can take out an annuity to cover nursing care in old age. ....
Can you indeed? I should be very interested to look at the cost of such a policy and the guaranteed benefits. If an insurance company can make such a scheme work then HMG should be able to as well and the fuss about long term care should not exist.
I am sceptical, however. My neighbour has been in a nursing home for about 18 months and is basically a zombie (his brain has gone but his body, aided by the NHS, lives on). His two children will get very little from his estate, once the nursing home bill is paid (its about £100 per day). What sort of insurance cover would cough up for those sort of sums and how much would it cost?
I suspect, Mr L, that one would have to be very youndg when one took it out to make it financilly manageable.
I suspect that the best thing is to be a member of some sort of benefit society.
It's like we're carving out a new comedy franchise. Carry On Protesting. And right now the sound of Sid James's dirty cackle just about sums up where Labour's at.
As a Labour MP sometimes it's better to laugh than cry. Because the inescapable truth is painfully hard to countenance.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
I quite liked Labour's idea (mentioned during the leadership contest I believe) of unemployment benefits being paid on a sliding scale according to previous income, so for example you'd get 90% of your previous income for the first month unemployed, 80% for the second month etc. It would soften the blow and allow the necessary lifestyle changes to be phased rather than suddenly needing to happen all at once.
You have to accompany that with other reductions from the welfare budget though, as it will cost more than the existing system. For some on welfare to get more others must get less.
Of course. My ideal benefits system would look rather draconian and disruptive for anyone without a job for more than a few months, at the expense of looking after those who find themselves between jobs for a short time.
I agree somwhat. I think its a travesty that contributions based JSA is the same as non contributions based.
Mr. Antifrank, the Balkans are a source of economic migrants who, like many others, are seeking to take advantage of Merkel's lunacy.
As for the others, I have some sympathy, but they signed up the Schengen, we're providing more funds to camps than most of the EU combined and we're providing naval assistance in the Mediterranean.
The problem here is not the UK's response. It's the German response.
I see. So it's someone else's problem. And we wonder why Britain gets so little warmth from EU partners.
Of course no European nation puts national interests above doing the "right" thing.
It appears that like Labour you feel we should roll over and bare our tummy to our European neighbours and that will give us "influence" and make them like us more.
Not much evidence of that having happened to date is there?
He said: "I think the State Banquet is for Her Majesty – it’s her show. Either Jeremy Corbyn or others are her guests.
“I think the British people are very gentlemen[ly], very smart. They know how to behave on occasions like this."
Mr Corbyn's spokesman confirmed: "He will be using the opportunity next week to raise the issue of human rights.
A member of Islington Labour Party lecturing someone else on human rights? What could possibly go wrong if Xi takes umbrage?
I really think Xi could not care less what Corbyn thinks, a hapless opposition leader of a middle ranking power trying to tell the president of a superpower what he thinks
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
Sorry, but is there any documented research which shows that a significant number of people in UK have children primarily because of the benefits system?
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
The claim is not that they have children because of the benefits system, but that they do not consider affordability when they have children, which they should do.
And is there any "proper" evidence that such people exist?
Does evidence about this matter? The state considers it advisable to help parents, because children are important and being able to bring them up is important. The public have no problem with this, we were children once, we might have them or grandchildren in future. Why should the state however pay child benefit ad infinitum. Typical numbers of children are 2. This seems a more than reasonable limit to offer a child benefit. It seems more than a reasonable limit when the nation has a massive structural deficit that it cannot afford.
Actually 2 isn't replacement. Nations need to be round the 2.4 mark, so need at least some 3's.
I am not considering replacement. I am thinking solely about what is reasonable to expect. If you really wanted to take a 0.4 element then there is an argument for setting child benefit at 1.2 of its current rate I suppose.
Back from the canvass session with Corbyn, which (sensibly) was actually primarily a voter registration session, since the December 1 deadline used by the Boundary Commissioners to fix future constituencies is pretty crucial. 45 people turned out for this necessary but soul-destroying job - the area is Entryphone Paradise, so you spend hours ringing one bell after another and getting replies from maybe one in 4. I found two unregistered voters and picked up some useful data, including three people who wanted to join. Meagre pickings, but has to be done.
Picking up points on the thread: HYUFD - Switzerland MAINLY has cantonal taxation. In the areas like Basel with big employers, my impression is that the tax rates are slightly higher than the UK, but they use a sliding scale rather than fixed increments so the marginal rate varied from year to year.
JEO - obviously we can't (and shouldn't) brain-scan migrants for improper thoughts, and if someone supports loony groups and does nothing about it, we needn't really care. But I was thinking more in positive terms that a Yazidi, say, would be better able to give evidence of being in danger (and hence should get higher priority) than someone who had no quarrel with ISIS and merely wanted a better life elsewhere.
I do incidentally favour the EU funding well-run local refugee camps near Syria (and I think the Turks do have legitimate cause to grumble that we don't do more), and where someone isn't in danger and doesn't have skills that we want, I wouldn't object to returning migrants in Europe to such camps. But where they're in danger, we should agree throughout the EU to share out the job of helping them in, and Britain should take its share.
After he restricted tax credits to two children it became "George Osborne - poverty bringer to the third born"
Perhaps people could wait until they can afford to support a third child before having one? Children are a wonderful thing, but it is unreasonable to have them expecting other people to pick up the tab.
So you would exempt those who's family circumstances change from the cuts?
Sorry, I did not follow you.
Take for example a family on a decent income who's family circumstances change...family illness, loss of a career etc. When they had their third child they probably never envisaged having to rely on tax credits
Yes, if exceptional adverse circumstances exist, I would be very happy to make exceptions.
I quite liked Labour's idea (mentioned during the leadership contest I believe) of unemployment benefits being paid on a sliding scale according to previous income, so for example you'd get 90% of your previous income for the first month unemployed, 80% for the second month etc. It would soften the blow and allow the necessary lifestyle changes to be phased rather than suddenly needing to happen all at once.
You have to accompany that with other reductions from the welfare budget though, as it will cost more than the existing system. For some on welfare to get more others must get less.
Of course. My ideal benefits system would look rather draconian and disruptive for anyone without a job for more than a few months, at the expense of looking after those who find themselves between jobs for a short time.
I agree somwhat. I think its a travesty that contributions based JSA is the same as non contributions based.
Indeed, though though you can claim it regardless of savings for six months unlike income based JSA which you cannot claim if you have more than £16,000 of savings.
He said: "I think the State Banquet is for Her Majesty – it’s her show. Either Jeremy Corbyn or others are her guests.
“I think the British people are very gentlemen[ly], very smart. They know how to behave on occasions like this."
Mr Corbyn's spokesman confirmed: "He will be using the opportunity next week to raise the issue of human rights.
A member of Islington Labour Party lecturing someone else on human rights? What could possibly go wrong if Xi takes umbrage?
I really think Xi could not care less what Corbyn thinks, a hapless opposition leader of a middle ranking power trying to tell the president of a superpower what he thinks
You might be surprised HYUFD. The Chinese can be quite touchy if their honour is impugned, particularly if there is any truth to the allegation.
I was merely thinking that if this story were flung at Corbyn he would end up looking rather silly. Being lectured on human rights by the leader of the PRC would be, in a field of stiff competition, his most disastrously embarrassing moment to date.
Ireland then go and score a try, so there is a little hope for the Shamrocks yet
Recall this is the Argentina side which very nearly beat the All Blacks. All the southern teams are benefiting from playing each other constantly - in particular, playing the All Blacks. They have to raise their general game to compete.
But Ireland might still win this. The crowd could see them home.
Indeed, in the world rankings first is New Zealand, second Australia, third Ireland, fourth Wales, fifth South Africa, sixth Argentina. So New Zealand and Australia ought to be the finalists but following these quarter finals S Africa and Argentina should take third and fourth (although as you say there is some hope for Ireland still)
Comments
There is something very odd about people (and this is not directed at your personally) who are all in favour of muticulturalism and the rest but apparently against helping a group in one of those cultures who face a most uncertain (at best) future. And there is something even odder about people all in favour of letting Muslim refugees in - and thereby, on your argument, letting religion into our laws - arguing against letting in another religious denomination. It's almost as if using the word "Christian" in front of refugees immunizes people against compassion. Oh - and BTW - I would help Yazidis and Kurds too. And those Muslims who are persecuted.
We can't help everyone so we should prioritise those most at risk, that's all. Apparently, that's a controversial statement. Oh well.
about 1,000,000 to one I would guess.
Miss Cyclefree, indeed.
Before the war kicked off properly, when it was more marches and protests, there was a piece on the news about a Christian leader in Syria who was worried that the (relatively) decent treatment Christians got in Syria would give way to persecution, as is the case in many other nearby nations.
http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/uk/taxsummaries/wwts.nsf/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Taxes-on-personal-income
Mr. Floater, probably making it up, I would've guessed.
If the Government said we'd take 75,000, the bishops and judges would be advocating a quarter of a million.
Sajid Javid is included, I see.
As many will not even have two children, the population will decline and , guess what, more immigration !
And i had a problem with 750k poles as well, although that fucks your implied smear
And to butt in to your other nauseating argument, people born and raised in the UK might not like to be called Pakistanis... I'm sure there would be several people on here willing to argue with me if I referred to someone with Pakistani parents that was born in the UK as a 'Pakistani'
Whatever floats your boat.....
The result ought to be a comprehensive model comparing the impact of the last 10 years fiscal policy on the low paid.
Go on Corbo - listen to your Broxtrowe friend and adopt it as a policy!
I think he means investing and building infrastructure and lines for the mass production of floating wicker baskets............. Could be wrong though?
It's labour's moral authority on opposing the tax credit cuts. A very weak outing by shadow cabinet members when asked if they are committing to reverse the cuts.
They looked very shambolic. The more they up the anti about how unjust the changes are, the more they look ridiculous by refusing to reverse them.
Note: Reporters from the DM doing a quick trawl with loiaed questions does NOT count as research.
In any event the comparison of tax rates between now and any time in beyond a few years ago is, I suggest, not a useful thing to do. Circumstances were different then, what the government was expected to do and the demands/expectations of the population were not as they are now.
Remember, mortgage rates were 15% at the time.
The difference was that the two-thirds (or even half) left over after paying the mortgage went much, much further then and one could, on reasonably modest means, maintain a decent lifestyle.
When the price of a small house starts at £250,000, saving up £25,000 from taxed income must be damn near impossible for people in normal jobs. Yet if a couple can get a deposit together the cost of the mortgage will be less than the rent on a similar house.
In an effort to ensure that the banks don't collapse again it seems that HMG have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. As Mr. Charles pointed out on here the other day, The Northern Rock's 125% mortgage book was profitable with a low rate of default.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11938854/Jeremy-Corbyn-China-president-Xi-Jinping.html
The Chinese ambassador has warned Jeremy Corbyn should "know how to behave" when he sits down with the country's President at Buckingham Palace.
He said: "I think the State Banquet is for Her Majesty – it’s her show. Either Jeremy Corbyn or others are her guests.
“I think the British people are very gentlemen[ly], very smart. They know how to behave on occasions like this."
Mr Corbyn's spokesman confirmed: "He will be using the opportunity next week to raise the issue of human rights.
You have to accompany that with other reductions from the welfare budget though, as it will cost more than the existing system. For some on welfare to get more others must get less.
Genuine migrants accepted here of course don't care where they live as long as they are safe. Would a cheaper and more socially acceptable answer not be to build a tent city on a military base and house them there?
The whole point of interest rates rising is to deliberatly take money out of the economy, ie make people poorer, and regulate it to slow down rather than overheat. Periodically people are deliberately made poorer to sustain long term affordability. This happens because you cannot defy the laws of economic gravity.
The tax credit business is matched in part by higher tax allowances (a tax cut) and the so called living wage (a pay rise).
You might also want to consider adopting a reasonably unhealthy lifestyle so that their inheritance is not consumed in nursing home fees. No need to go mad, just a modest regime of alcohol and the occasional cigar should, according to the latest medical advice, do the job. You will be saving the NHS a fortune too.
Latest Kids Company spending claim: money spent at a Harley St clinic on a relative of CB’s chauffeur. http://t.co/updq95TyRu
Only until 5or so pm, though! Although one could argue that even though they're out, they'll still have been etc.
I am sceptical, however. My neighbour has been in a nursing home for about 18 months and is basically a zombie (his brain has gone but his body, aided by the NHS, lives on). His two children will get very little from his estate, once the nursing home bill is paid (its about £100 per day). What sort of insurance cover would cough up for those sort of sums and how much would it cost?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/children-victims-tory-welfare-cap-5784476
I suspect that the best thing is to be a member of some sort of benefit society.
It appears that like Labour you feel we should roll over and bare our tummy to our European neighbours and that will give us "influence" and make them like us more.
Not much evidence of that having happened to date is there?
Picking up points on the thread:
HYUFD - Switzerland MAINLY has cantonal taxation. In the areas like Basel with big employers, my impression is that the tax rates are slightly higher than the UK, but they use a sliding scale rather than fixed increments so the marginal rate varied from year to year.
JEO - obviously we can't (and shouldn't) brain-scan migrants for improper thoughts, and if someone supports loony groups and does nothing about it, we needn't really care. But I was thinking more in positive terms that a Yazidi, say, would be better able to give evidence of being in danger (and hence should get higher priority) than someone who had no quarrel with ISIS and merely wanted a better life elsewhere.
I do incidentally favour the EU funding well-run local refugee camps near Syria (and I think the Turks do have legitimate cause to grumble that we don't do more), and where someone isn't in danger and doesn't have skills that we want, I wouldn't object to returning migrants in Europe to such camps. But where they're in danger, we should agree throughout the EU to share out the job of helping them in, and Britain should take its share.
I was merely thinking that if this story were flung at Corbyn he would end up looking rather silly. Being lectured on human rights by the leader of the PRC would be, in a field of stiff competition, his most disastrously embarrassing moment to date.