The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
Yes I get that, but taxing people on one hand and giving them money with the other is a nonsense, just don't tax them.
Because it costs more to implement the system of means testing etc. it works in combination with a flat tax and eliminating other transfers and allowances.
So you'll be lobbying your MP to introduce this here then?
Mr. Chameleon, hope you and your friend(s) are alright.
According to Twitter someone was stabbed in Poundland.
Thanks, that does sound a little bit more like Abingdon. Air Ambulance has landed in Abingdon Boys'. Apparently the suspect(s) have been caught.
Good grief is this true? I know people who were at that school until recently.
Unfortunately it is, Air Ambulance still there, sirens still going around the town.
AFAIK though no students from the school were harmed.
Keep calm and carry on etc but Poundland in Abingdon would hardly seem to be an obvious target.
Yup, apparently it was a middle aged white guy who shouted 'someone's gonna die today' walking down the arcade. Luckily it looks like he failed in that.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
One of those ideas that sounds madder than it is (like abolishing state education, or unilateral disarmament ).
Will be far easier to administer in Finland though (populations of about 4-5m from the top of my head, with greater income equality).
Mr. Eagles, he also lost us land and almost got the kingdom conquered by the French.
A price worth paying for Magna Carta
As you are a legal man Mr. Eagles, I find that statement astonishing. Which bits of Magna Carta do you find so important and, more especially, extant?
Lord Denning put it better than I ever could when he said of Magna Carta,
"the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot"
Thank you for telling me what Denning said of Magna Carta, I had hoped to find out your views. Perhaps, like many who talk about the Great Charter, you have never actually read it.
Given my very rusty Latin, I haven't read it in the original, but it is pretty widely misrepresented. John's version dealt with baronial and Church rights, royal justice (and the limits thereof) and feudal taxation. There wasn't a hell of a lot in there for the commoners. That said, it _was_ the first English codification of the limits of feudal monarchs.
However, it does give us my favourite Tony Hancock quip (for the unitiated: "Will no one think of Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?").
On topic (sort of) I get loads of Twitter ads from Leave.EU (I'm guessing based on the fact that I follow a few eurosceptics; it's wasted effort really as I'm a confirmed, if disinterested, remainer who happens to be interested in what David Davis & Douglas Carswell have to say on things).
Yet I get NOTHING from the remain camp. They need to get their act together. At least Leave are doing their democratic duty and running a campaign.
Just been listening to the PM in Burton - he repeated the phrase "You ain't no Muslim bruv." Memetastic.
Aiiii!
Extraordinary, Ali G lives in number 10.
To be fair, if Farage, Corbyn or Farron said it I wouldn't be slating them
The problem is I fear that one person heard having a go at the attacker will lead to a meme from the liberal elite that there is no problem with the clash of cultures as its only a tiny minority going around killing/beheading/stabbing people. I take it that's what Cameron was trying to say?
I would rather there was no stabbing and no need for the apology/disown
'French generally was the preferred language of the upper classes till the mid 14th century, and of the Court till the end of the century'
I think there is considerable evidence that most of the 'upper classes' (broadly speaking) were at the very least bilingual by the late 12th century, even if French maintained a privileged position in official communications. French was having to be taught (as a foreign language) on an extensive scale to upper class people and students for example in the 13th century.
What a brilliant article. Thanks very much for the link.
No its a rubbish article. It actually does exactly what it criticises others for doing which is putting a modern slant on the Magna Carta - only it does it from the opposite view of those it is criticising.
What it fails to do is recognise that it was through the very act of mythologising the Magna Carta that the lawyers of the 17th century actually gave it the importance that it holds today. It was their interpretation of the charter that allowed it to be used as the basis for so many other fundamental laws that frame our constitution. Now Sumption might think they were wrong to do that but the fact that they did do it gives the document the importance we ascrive to it today and in effect back dates that importance.
Sumption may disagree with their interpretation as may many other historians today but it is too late. We might use the old adage that history is written by the victors and in this case the victors are those who framed the laws of the late 17th century and based them upon the Magna Carta. Sumption had already lost that argument long before he even considered a life in law.
Just been listening to the PM in Burton - he repeated the phrase "You ain't no Muslim bruv." Memetastic.
Aiiii!
Extraordinary, Ali G lives in number 10.
To be fair, if Farage, Corbyn or Farron said it I wouldn't be slating them
The problem is I fear that one person heard having a go at the attacker will lead to a meme from the liberal elite that there is no problem with the clash of cultures as its only a tiny minority going around killing/beheading/stabbing people
I would rather there was no stabbing and no need for the apology/disown
Oh come on, I appreciate you're trying to be charitable, next thing he'll be wearing a baseball cap back to front, blinged up at PMQs.
I've no idea what point he was trying to make but he's the PM not a journalist, this is a big mistake by Cameron.
Didn't all the well to do speak French? I read an article about etymology re love vs amorous, lamb vs mutton et al that reflects the dual languages use of the times
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
French generally was the preferred language of the upper classes till the mid 14th century, and of the Court till the end of the century. And, until well into the 16th century, legal cases had to conducted in a weird mix of Norman French and Latin.
Henry IV was the first King to have no French; his predecessors were bilingual, though it's likely that Edward II was the first to have French as his second, rather than first, language.
I find it hard to believe that Henry IV was monolingual and had no French - he did spend a chunk of his youth as a warrior on the continent.
Be that as it may it was Edward III who passed the Act that required all proceedings in English courts to be conducted in English. That was in about 1360, from memory, though doubtless it took the lawyers a few years to actually catch up (aren't they still wearing the garb adopted for the period of Queen Anne's mourning and she died in 1714).
Bah what does he know. Says what low standards there are today to become a Justice of the Supreme Court.
I had a case in the Supreme Court last year about a rather arcane piece of Scottish conveyancing. Sumption sat there for about 20 minutes, looking bored and disconcertingly like Simon Callow in 4W+F, after which he interrupted and said, is this case not about a, b and c and is anyone seriously suggesting that in the 21st Century the pursuer was not going to get compensation after paying for something he didn't get?
I thought Lord Hope was going to have an attack of the vapours with his precious Roman law and indeed his own prior decisions on the matter so cavalierly dismissed but, after some suitable shuffling, it was agreed that, yes, yes it was and yes, he should indeed be compensated.
He struck me as absurdly bright (and not just because he was on my side).
Just been listening to the PM in Burton - he repeated the phrase "You ain't no Muslim bruv." Memetastic.
Aiiii!
Extraordinary, Ali G lives in number 10.
To be fair, if Farage, Corbyn or Farron said it I wouldn't be slating them
The problem is I fear that one person heard having a go at the attacker will lead to a meme from the liberal elite that there is no problem with the clash of cultures as its only a tiny minority going around killing/beheading/stabbing people
I would rather there was no stabbing and no need for the apology/disown
Oh come on, I appreciate you're trying to be charitable, next thing he'll be wearing a baseball cap back to front, blinged up at PMQs.
I've no idea what point he was trying to make but he's the PM not a journalist, this is a big mistake by Cameron.
A Mr Sacha Baron-Cohen BA (Cantab) has made a career out of this sort of thing.
Just been listening to the PM in Burton - he repeated the phrase "You ain't no Muslim bruv." Memetastic.
Aiiii!
Extraordinary, Ali G lives in number 10.
To be fair, if Farage, Corbyn or Farron said it I wouldn't be slating them
The problem is I fear that one person heard having a go at the attacker will lead to a meme from the liberal elite that there is no problem with the clash of cultures as its only a tiny minority going around killing/beheading/stabbing people. I take it that's what Cameron was trying to say?
I would rather there was no stabbing and no need for the apology/disown
We all feel like that. But better to have one person having a go like that than no-one saying anything and then people being criticised for not speaking up. It's the unprepared instinctive spur of the moment quality of it which resonates. It wasn't an after-the-event considered response.
Given the nastiness of so much that has happened lately, it's not surprising that people hang on to some small signs of sense and decency. I think there was some of that in the reaction to Hilary Benn's speech as well.
I still think Leytonstone is the act of a mentally ill person, rather than a planned terrorist attack. But thinking further too is the sort of religous zealotry that IS sycophants and acolytes exhibit is very close to mass severe mental illness.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
Yes I get that, but taxing people on one hand and giving them money with the other is a nonsense, just don't tax them.
I appreciate that it's a particularly profound concept, but even though I share your dislike of giving with one hand while taking with the other, it's still simpler - I can think back on my own life with periods of high income, low income, unemployment, travelling time (via a sabbatical) and now my current situation with a tiny pension (on which I pay almost no tax) topped up with episodic drawing from my investments. People's lives are complex .
Yes it's complex but we have to move away from this free money concept prevalent in society. AFAIK every party believes the welfare bill and our approach to welfare must change, I don't see how giving £200pw to everybody helps that. And inflation will go through the roof which means that as usual the poorest won't benefit.
It always comes round to the same thing, govt in general is useless.
I'm not in favour of a UBI, though I can see the appeal. I think we're going to have to collectively wean ourselves off the state's teat. We can do that voluntarily, in a planned way, or globalisation and technological trends will force it upon us.
''I've no idea what point he was trying to make but he's the PM not a journalist, this is a big mistake by Cameron.''
The political elite have promised us a 'vast majority of moderate muslims' and will go to any lengths to display its existence.
They will also go to any lengths to prevent parties outside the 'mainstream' getting power. As we speak, in France a network of very unholy alliances is being organised to prevent the FN winning regions.
Never mind dealing with the underlying causes that prompt desperate people to vote for extremists.
Whatever you vote for in Western Europe, you get social democracy.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
Yes I get that, but taxing people on one hand and giving them money with the other is a nonsense, just don't tax them.
Because it costs more to implement the system of means testing etc. it works in combination with a flat tax and eliminating other transfers and allowances.
So you'll be lobbying your MP to introduce this here then?
No because I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell it'd get implemented properly here, by eliminating other transfers and allowances. If it's implemented as just another transfer them that's more harm. If it was implemented properly then that'd be great but I can't see it happening. It would get bastardised.
I still think Leytonstone is the act of a mentally ill person, rather than a planned terrorist attack. [snip] We should await the psychiatrict report anyway.
Indeed, I had the same thought at the time – one would have thought a terrorist attacker would go better prepared for the job than with just a Stanley Knife.
There are two types of campaign that will be run before the referendum: one of hope, and one of fear. It is becoming ever clearer that the ‘In’ campaigns blahh blahh....
Project Fear
Since the dreadful Paris attacks both the pro-EU BSE campaign and Labour In For Britain have claimed that leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s national security.
blah blah....
The UK can do better
blah blah....
Wonderful - thank you for peddling propaganda on PB.
Says the PB resident Euroloon.
Says PB resident anti-Euroloon.
Is PB to become a place filled by people loyally passing on propaganda emails?
Well it still beats the kind of ignorant uninformed garbage that you post.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour. CBI
I appreciate that it's a particularly profound concept, but even though I share your dislike of giving with one hand while taking with the other, it's still simpler - I can think back on my own life with periods of high income, low income, unemployment, travelling time (via a sabbatical) and now my current situation with a tiny pension (on which I pay almost no tax) topped up with episodic drawing from my investments. People's lives are complex .
Yes it's complex but we have to move away from this free money concept prevalent in society. AFAIK every party believes the welfare bill and our approach to welfare must change, I don't see how giving £200pw to everybody helps that. And inflation will go through the roof which means that as usual the poorest won't benefit.
It always comes round to the same thing, govt in general is useless.
I'm not in favour of a UBI, though I can see the appeal. I think we're going to have to collectively wean ourselves off the state's teat. We can do that voluntarily, in a planned way, or globalisation and technological trends will force it upon us.
I personally am a huge advocate of a Universal basic income, and am therefore over the moon that it is getting serious discussion hear and elsewhere. most promising is that it is getting trialled in Finland and in the Dutch City of Utrecht.
For those that what a succinct argument: At the moment, are welfare system punishes good behaver, i.e. get a job and you no longer get unemployment benefit, save money to buy your won house, and you no longer get Housing Benefit, Get married before you have Kids, and you move down the waiting list for a Cancel House.
What a brilliant article. Thanks very much for the link.
No its a rubbish article. It actually does exactly what it criticises others for doing which is putting a modern slant on the Magna Carta - only it does it from the opposite view of those it is criticising.
What it fails to do is recognise that it was through the very act of mythologising the Magna Carta that the lawyers of the 17th century actually gave it the importance that it holds today. It was their interpretation of the charter that allowed it to be used as the basis for so many other fundamental laws that frame our constitution. Now Sumption might think they were wrong to do that but the fact that they did do it gives the document the importance we ascrive to it today and in effect back dates that importance.
Sumption may disagree with their interpretation as may many other historians today but it is too late. We might use the old adage that history is written by the victors and in this case the victors are those who framed the laws of the late 17th century and based them upon the Magna Carta. Sumption had already lost that argument long before he even considered a life in law.
That's a fair point. But so is Sumption's about mythos.
I still think Leytonstone is the act of a mentally ill person, rather than a planned terrorist attack. But thinking further too is the sort of religous zealotry that IS sycophants and acolytes exhibit is very close to mass severe mental illness.
We should await the psychiatrict report anyway.
Having a religion is by definition a severe mental illness.
Comments
Will be far easier to administer in Finland though (populations of about 4-5m from the top of my head, with greater income equality).
However, it does give us my favourite Tony Hancock quip (for the unitiated: "Will no one think of Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?").
Yet I get NOTHING from the remain camp. They need to get their act together. At least Leave are doing their democratic duty and running a campaign.
The problem is I fear that one person heard having a go at the attacker will lead to a meme from the liberal elite that there is no problem with the clash of cultures as its only a tiny minority going around killing/beheading/stabbing people. I take it that's what Cameron was trying to say?
I would rather there was no stabbing and no need for the apology/disown
I think there is considerable evidence that most of the 'upper classes' (broadly speaking) were at the very least bilingual by the late 12th century, even if French maintained a privileged position in official communications. French was having to be taught (as a foreign language) on an extensive scale to upper class people and students for example in the 13th century.
What it fails to do is recognise that it was through the very act of mythologising the Magna Carta that the lawyers of the 17th century actually gave it the importance that it holds today. It was their interpretation of the charter that allowed it to be used as the basis for so many other fundamental laws that frame our constitution. Now Sumption might think they were wrong to do that but the fact that they did do it gives the document the importance we ascrive to it today and in effect back dates that importance.
Sumption may disagree with their interpretation as may many other historians today but it is too late. We might use the old adage that history is written by the victors and in this case the victors are those who framed the laws of the late 17th century and based them upon the Magna Carta. Sumption had already lost that argument long before he even considered a life in law.
I've no idea what point he was trying to make but he's the PM not a journalist, this is a big mistake by Cameron.
Be that as it may it was Edward III who passed the Act that required all proceedings in English courts to be conducted in English. That was in about 1360, from memory, though doubtless it took the lawyers a few years to actually catch up (aren't they still wearing the garb adopted for the period of Queen Anne's mourning and she died in 1714).
I thought Lord Hope was going to have an attack of the vapours with his precious Roman law and indeed his own prior decisions on the matter so cavalierly dismissed but, after some suitable shuffling, it was agreed that, yes, yes it was and yes, he should indeed be compensated.
He struck me as absurdly bright (and not just because he was on my side).
Given the nastiness of so much that has happened lately, it's not surprising that people hang on to some small signs of sense and decency. I think there was some of that in the reaction to Hilary Benn's speech as well.
We should await the psychiatrict report anyway.
You've just completely ruined a perfectly good meme.
The political elite have promised us a 'vast majority of moderate muslims' and will go to any lengths to display its existence.
They will also go to any lengths to prevent parties outside the 'mainstream' getting power. As we speak, in France a network of very unholy alliances is being organised to prevent the FN winning regions.
Never mind dealing with the underlying causes that prompt desperate people to vote for extremists.
Whatever you vote for in Western Europe, you get social democracy.
"That will cut no ice with the White Walkers, Jon Snow needs to up his game."
LOL.
New Thread New Thread
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12036681/Who-said-it-Stop-the-War-Coalition-or-Isil.html