Obama is trying to compromise with the unreasonable Republicans. As they say they won't confirm anyone, he is saying "fine, how about I pick someone for a much shorter term". But it won't work. They still won't confirm anyone, and then Clinton will have to pick same compromise candidate but only if she wins. So Dems will still have same risk, but with less reward. Big mistake here.
But you are overlooking that Clinton might well be working with a Democratic Senate.
No, I'm not. Thats even more reason for picking a more liberal candidate.
Ah sorry, misread your argument. But I don't think it follows that Clinton has to re-pick Garland (regardless of Senate control). She'll be her own President and entitled to her own pick. Perhaps she might reward Loretta Lynch?
But then she can't hammer Republicans for not confirming Garland.
If she has a Senate majority, she can say "ok, the politics have changed, here's my new nominee"; if she doesn't then she can say "ok, you've rejected Garland, how about X?" She can still hammer them in the meantime.
Anyhow, it's been suggested (plausibly) that Garland wasn't Obama's first choice and that younger and more liberal candidates might have already turned down the suicide mission.
Rotherham has 1,100 private hire and taxi drivers, 47 have just lost their licenses - another 171 drivers suspended because they'd not completed compulsory training sessions on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. And then this trial is just starting >
"In what police say is the largest child sexual exploitation (CSE) investigation in the country - bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Rotherham - the men face a combined total of 59 charges, including rape, sexual activity with a child under 16 and trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation."
The ability to use the bonus for housebuying or pension buying is useful and means it is helpful to a wider income spectrum, but does seem a bit of a confused policy objective: surely you should incentivise long term (quasi-pension) and medium term (homebuying) saving in separate pots, not together?
I think this is intended to address the problem that people don't save into pensions because they see them as inflexible and the payout too remote. That being the case, having a single pot rather than two pots is a better incentive.
Yeah, but then they *won't* save into pensions, because they'll have used the money in the pot to buy a house.
Does anyone know what brought about the change whereby nowadays it is the Deputy Speaker who takes the Chair for the Budget Speech? Until the early 1970s- when Anthony Barber was Chancellor - the Speaker remained in the Chair.
"Moreover, it is the custom for the Chairman to take the chair during the debate on the Chancellor’s Budget, even though there is nothing preventing the Speaker from presiding over the Budget debate (and it has happened in practice). The financial measures contained in the Chancellor’s Budget are brought in on Ways and Means Resolutions."
Interesting... I was looking up the sugar content in alcoholic drinks the other night as I decided which booze to drown my sorrows with..
I like a Guinness, but that has 5 teaspoons full in each pint
I actually bought some cider and took it back after I read it had so much sugar in
Prosecco is the best apparently, unless you like straight Vodka (or w lime and soda)
Holland & Barrett protein shakes, supposedly healthy, contain 12 sugars per scoop.. no wonder the fat wasn't shifting!
Osborne would have been better off telling everyone "LOOK AT THE CARBS (OF WHICH SUGARS) CONTENT... DIVIDE BY 4 AND THATS HOW MANY SUGARS IN YOUR DRINK"
or put a big spoon symbol on every drink with a big number next to it highlighting the teaspoons of sugar...education
The ability to use the bonus for housebuying or pension buying is useful and means it is helpful to a wider income spectrum, but does seem a bit of a confused policy objective: surely you should incentivise long term (quasi-pension) and medium term (homebuying) saving in separate pots, not together?
I think this is intended to address the problem that people don't save into pensions because they see them as inflexible and the payout too remote. That being the case, having a single pot rather than two pots is a better incentive.
Impressive selection of "tax cuts for the rich" rolling out now (lifetime ISA is for those with surplus cash during an age bracket where anyone not already wealthy is desperately trying to afford a house).
You and I have very different ideas as to who is wealthy or rich.
I think those who have 20k+ spare cash a year, and those who are paying material amounts of CGT, can reasonably be defined as rich. Other definitions are available - where would you place "rich"?
Anything above 300K
Net worth, investible assets or annual income?
Net worth cash excl property, pension & other income. a modest competence
Employees (and their employers), yes. I don't think that's going to change. But encouraging people to save more - either for pensions, rainy-day money, or a deposit on a home - is a useful addition to that.
The ability to use the bonus for housebuying or pension buying is useful and means it is helpful to a wider income spectrum, but does seem a bit of a confused policy objective: surely you should incentivise long term (quasi-pension) and medium term (homebuying) saving in separate pots, not together?
I think this is intended to address the problem that people don't save into pensions because they see them as inflexible and the payout too remote. That being the case, having a single pot rather than two pots is a better incentive.
It will be worth reading the details of this carefully, maybe Mr Meeks would care to give us the fruits of his wisdom once he has spent his valuable time debriefing his well paying clients.
Anecdotal evidence from my peer group (30s and 40s, professional or skilled workers, mixture of employed and self-employed, most having worked abroad at some point) suggests that pensions are unpopular due to inflexibility, low returns, high fees and high housing costs competing for income. Those with pensions only have them because an employer contributed.
Does anyone know what brought about the change whereby nowadays it is the Deputy Speaker who takes the Chair for the Budget Speech? Until the early 1970s- when Anthony Barber was Chancellor - the Speaker remained in the Chair.
"Moreover, it is the custom for the Chairman to take the chair during the debate on the Chancellor’s Budget, even though there is nothing preventing the Speaker from presiding over the Budget debate (and it has happened in practice). The financial measures contained in the Chancellor’s Budget are brought in on Ways and Means Resolutions."
The ability to use the bonus for housebuying or pension buying is useful and means it is helpful to a wider income spectrum, but does seem a bit of a confused policy objective: surely you should incentivise long term (quasi-pension) and medium term (homebuying) saving in separate pots, not together?
I think this is intended to address the problem that people don't save into pensions because they see them as inflexible and the payout too remote. That being the case, having a single pot rather than two pots is a better incentive.
Aren't people now forced to save into pensions ?
Is that requirement going to change ?
Employers are forced to enrol their employees in a pension and make contributions, for which they may require some elements of matching. Employees can opt out still. We've not crossed into compulsion yet.
Employees (and their employers), yes. I don't think that's going to change. But encouraging people to save more - either for pensions, rainy-day money, or a deposit on a home - is a useful addition to that.
The ability to use the bonus for housebuying or pension buying is useful and means it is helpful to a wider income spectrum, but does seem a bit of a confused policy objective: surely you should incentivise long term (quasi-pension) and medium term (homebuying) saving in separate pots, not together?
I think this is intended to address the problem that people don't save into pensions because they see them as inflexible and the payout too remote. That being the case, having a single pot rather than two pots is a better incentive.
Yeah, but then they *won't* save into pensions, because they'll have used the money in the pot to buy a house.
They can keep saving into the same ISA once they've bought their first house. I guess the hope is that they should be in the savings habit by then. Of course, the 25% top-up is then functionally equivalent to the 20% tax relief they could already have on pension contributions [if basic rate payers], but it's not hard to see the top-up being perceived as more valuable.
The ability to use the bonus for housebuying or pension buying is useful and means it is helpful to a wider income spectrum, but does seem a bit of a confused policy objective: surely you should incentivise long term (quasi-pension) and medium term (homebuying) saving in separate pots, not together?
I think this is intended to address the problem that people don't save into pensions because they see them as inflexible and the payout too remote. That being the case, having a single pot rather than two pots is a better incentive.
It will be worth reading the details of this carefully, maybe Mr Meeks would care to give us the fruits of his wisdom once he has spent his valuable time debriefing his well paying clients.
Anecdotal evidence from my peer group (30s and 40s, professional or skilled workers, mixture of employed and self-employed, most having worked abroad at some point) suggests that pensions are unpopular due to inflexibility, low returns, high fees and high housing costs competing for income. Those with pensions only have them because an employer contributed.
Yeh - apart from those who work for big corps, none of my mates have pensions for the same reasons.
@Richard_Nabavi and I agreed that a sugar tax was a poor idea when Farage rubbished it on Question Time last year, I doubt many Cons will be cheering it. Sounds like the kind of thing McDonnell would salivate over
True, but are there many who opt out unless they've got other pensions which aren't technically compliant with the auto-enrolment rules?
Yeah, loads. Because of the ability to require employee contribution matching, when people don't even feel they can afford the couple of percent needed (due to need to pay rent/buy house/afford sugary drinks etc)
Employees (and their employers), yes. I don't think that's going to change. But encouraging people to save more - either for pensions, rainy-day money, or a deposit on a home - is a useful addition to that.
Certainly saving is to be encouraged.
The issue is how to do it and there's a trade off between allowances, tax efficiency and timescale.
The continuing problem re encouraging savings is the mediocre returns because of long term low interest rates and stock market underperformance.
And those are controlled by the economy's fundamental difficulties.
@Richard_Nabavi and I agreed that a sugar tax was a poor idea when Farage rubbished it on Question Time last year, I doubt many Cons will be cheering it. Sounds like the kind of thing McDonnell would salivate over
I think your suggestion of labelling with pictures of teaspoons of sugar was a better idea, but I'm not particularly fussed about it. The changes to small business rates, corporation tax and CGT are rather more significant.
Looking at the various sleights of hand Osborne has used to ensure he can say the deficit will still be eliminated by 2020 it's pretty clear he is not expecting to be chancellor in three years time. Whoever is has a hell of a task on his/her hands.
The issue is how to do it and there's a trade off between allowances, tax efficiency and timescale.
The continuing problem re encouraging savings is the mediocre returns because of long term low interest rates and stock market underperformance.
And those are controlled by the economy's fundamental difficulties.
Not at all. You don't need to invest a pension or ISA in the UK, and in any case the UK stockmarket has very little correlation with the domestic economy - especially not the FTSE100. You can invest in China, India, the US, the Eurozone, Canada, Australia, or South America if you prefer, all at the click of a mouse and at very low cost.
To return to EU matters for a moment, you may recall that the EU agreed in September 2015 to relocate 160,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece, to assist them in dealing with the pressures of the refugee crisis.
To date, just 937 have actually been relocated.
And yet you have willingly come down off your fence and will vote to strap us to this blundering , incompetent, and corrupt institution.
To return to EU matters for a moment, you may recall that the EU agreed in September 2015 to relocate 160,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece, to assist them in dealing with the pressures of the refugee crisis.
To date, just 937 have actually been relocated.
And yet you have willingly come down off your fence and will vote to strap us to this blundering , incompetent, and corrupt institution.
I didn't think anyone was interested in it! Thread headers have been written about this!
To return to EU matters for a moment, you may recall that the EU agreed in September 2015 to relocate 160,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece, to assist them in dealing with the pressures of the refugee crisis.
To date, just 937 have actually been relocated.
And yet you have willingly come down off your fence and will vote to strap us to this blundering , incompetent, and corrupt institution.
Yes.
That should tell you just how appalling I find the Leave side.
The issue is how to do it and there's a trade off between allowances, tax efficiency and timescale.
The continuing problem re encouraging savings is the mediocre returns because of long term low interest rates and stock market underperformance.
And those are controlled by the economy's fundamental difficulties.
Not at all. You don't need to invest a pension or ISA in the UK, and in any case the UK stockmarket has very little correlation with the domestic economy - especially not the FTSE100. You can invest in China, India, the US, the Eurozone, Canada, Australia, or South America if you prefer, all at the click of a mouse and at very low cost.
We might need to recalibrate back to the idea of "saving" as "not spending all your money so you have it in the future" rather than "not spending all your money so you MAGICALLY GET REALLY REALLY RICH IN THE FUTURE".
The issue is how to do it and there's a trade off between allowances, tax efficiency and timescale.
The continuing problem re encouraging savings is the mediocre returns because of long term low interest rates and stock market underperformance.
And those are controlled by the economy's fundamental difficulties.
Not at all. You don't need to invest a pension or ISA in the UK, and in any case the UK stockmarket has very little correlation with the domestic economy - especially not the FTSE100. You can invest in China, India, the US, the Eurozone, Canada, Australia, or South America if you prefer, all at the click of a mouse and at very low cost.
But make very sure if you're investing in foreign markets that the product you buy is regulated in the UK by the FSA. Most foreign financial regulation is somewhat more lax when it comes to fees, rates and charges - even if it comes from well known British names based abroad.
True, but are there many who opt out unless they've got other pensions which aren't technically compliant with the auto-enrolment rules?
Yeah, loads. Because of the ability to require employee contribution matching, when people don't even feel they can afford the couple of percent needed (due to need to pay rent/buy house/afford sugary drinks etc)
The number of opt-outs in total is around 10% I believe, but a lot of those will be for reasons other than affordability, such as having another, better pension already (which is why I opted out). It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the reasons.
The issue is how to do it and there's a trade off between allowances, tax efficiency and timescale.
The continuing problem re encouraging savings is the mediocre returns because of long term low interest rates and stock market underperformance.
And those are controlled by the economy's fundamental difficulties.
Not at all. You don't need to invest a pension or ISA in the UK, and in any case the UK stockmarket has very little correlation with the domestic economy - especially not the FTSE100. You can invest in China, India, the US, the Eurozone, Canada, Australia, or South America if you prefer, all at the click of a mouse and at very low cost.
That's a fair point about overseas investment.
But its not something the average saver or employee is going to think of - my ISAs are filled with foreign stocks yet even my default assumption is still about UK investment returns.
I suspect that the vast majority of people will have their pensions investments in whatever the default option their company provides and any ISAs will either be cash or in a few big name UK blue chip shares.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
True, but are there many who opt out unless they've got other pensions which aren't technically compliant with the auto-enrolment rules?
Yeah, loads. Because of the ability to require employee contribution matching, when people don't even feel they can afford the couple of percent needed (due to need to pay rent/buy house/afford sugary drinks etc)
The number of opt-outs in total is around 10% I believe, but a lot of those will be for reasons other than affordability, such as having another, better pension already (which is why I opted out). It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the reasons.
I suspect we are at cross purposes, but if not I don't understand why that would cause opt-out: in that situation you'd normally contribute the minimum and take the employer's contribution, then transfer out to your other pension on a regular basis. Unless you are hitting limits already but it seems hard to believe that's more than 1-2%.
I guess the key figure is the percentage of those with no previous pension provision who are opting out of auto-enrolment - those who already bother with pensions aren't so much of a concern.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
We should cut out the middle man and just tax body-weight.
Mr. Isam, just skimmed the bullet points of the Budget and there doesn't seem to be anything horrendous (for me personally).
The sugar tax is nanny state nonsense.
A bit of a damp squib all round imho; even though some have claimed (a) it proves he’s running for PM (b) it’s to help the Remain side etc. As for the Sugar Tax, it’s the dead cat everyone will be hyperventilating about.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
We should cut out the middle man and just tax body-weight.
I cut out alcohol and sugary drinks for a long while, and when I drank a coke or cider it tasted like pure sugar, actually hurt my teeth.. disgusting. It is just a case of making the break.. if kids never got the chance to drink drinks high in sugar, they wouldn't miss them
Now I mix sparkling water with them, if I bother at all, and they actually taste better, and are obviously more healthy
Looking at the various sleights of hand Osborne has used to ensure he can say the deficit will still be eliminated by 2020 it's pretty clear he is not expecting to be chancellor in three years time. Whoever is has a hell of a task on his/her hands.
Isn't he expecting to have moved next door? In which case missing the target will still be hiis problem.
I suspect we are at cross purposes, but if not I don't understand why that would cause opt-out: in that situation you'd normally contribute the minimum and take the employer's contribution, then transfer out to your other pension on a regular basis. Unless you are hitting limits already but it seems hard to believe that's more than 1-2%.
I guess the key figure is the percentage of those with no previous pension provision who are opting out of auto-enrolment - those who already bother with pensions aren't so much of a concern.
On the first point: because for small companies auto-enrolment is a complete pain in the neck, and pointless when you've already got a (non-compliant, but better) scheme which the employer can pay into.
On the second, yes, I agree that's the key figure. It's probably available somewhere but I couldn't find it with a quick bit of Googling.
I suspect we are at cross purposes, but if not I don't understand why that would cause opt-out: in that situation you'd normally contribute the minimum and take the employer's contribution, then transfer out to your other pension on a regular basis. Unless you are hitting limits already but it seems hard to believe that's more than 1-2%.
I guess the key figure is the percentage of those with no previous pension provision who are opting out of auto-enrolment - those who already bother with pensions aren't so much of a concern.
On the first point: because for small companies auto-enrolment is a complete pain in the neck, and pointless when you've already got a (non-compliant, but better) scheme which the employer can pay into.
On the second, yes, I agree that's the key figure. It's probably available somewhere but I couldn't find it with a quick bit of Googling.
Oh right, yeah we are at cross purposes. I thought you meant that only 10pc of employees with access to auto-enrolment schemes had opted out, rather than companies with "superior" schemes (can't remember the legislative term) that have chosen not to have a "standard" auto-enrolment arrangement.
Oh right, yeah we are at cross purposes. I thought you meant that only 10pc of employees with access to auto-enrolment schemes had opted out, rather than companies with "superior" schemes (can't remember the legislative term) that have chosen not to have a "standard" auto-enrolment arrangement.
I did mean that - that is the (approximate) figure for employees opting out of auto-enrolment schemes. Included in that will be some cases, such as my own, where the employer has to go through a pointless charade of setting up the auto-enrolment scheme which everyone then opts out of because the employer is quite happy to continue making higher payments to a non-compliant scheme.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Looking at the various sleights of hand Osborne has used to ensure he can say the deficit will still be eliminated by 2020 it's pretty clear he is not expecting to be chancellor in three years time. Whoever is has a hell of a task on his/her hands.
Isn't he expecting to have moved next door? In which case missing the target will still be hiis problem.
Not politically. He'll have the job he's after and the person that replaces him as Chancellor is going to owe him the job so will not rock the boat. And the election is in the bag.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Looking at the various sleights of hand Osborne has used to ensure he can say the deficit will still be eliminated by 2020 it's pretty clear he is not expecting to be chancellor in three years time. Whoever is has a hell of a task on his/her hands.
Isn't he expecting to have moved next door? In which case missing the target will still be hiis problem.
Missing the target is fundamentally not a problem in any case. As the last General Election proved. Leaving a surplus might actually encourage people to vote Labour.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Will supermarkets actually have a different price for Pepsi and Diet Pepsi/Pepsi Max, or just average out the price so that us Max drinkers get ripped off???
Oh right, yeah we are at cross purposes. I thought you meant that only 10pc of employees with access to auto-enrolment schemes had opted out, rather than companies with "superior" schemes (can't remember the legislative term) that have chosen not to have a "standard" auto-enrolment arrangement.
I did mean that - that is the (approximate) figure for employees opting out of auto-enrolment schemes. Included in that will be some cases, such as my own, where the employer has to go through a pointless charade of setting up the auto-enrolment scheme which everyone then opts out of because the employer is quite happy to continue making higher payments to a non-compliant scheme.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
...and substitute sugar for aspartame.. nice
SugarBabes to rename themselves The Aspartame Babes?
Could the UK government ban EU companies from selling high sugar drinks here? Or is tax the only way...
Oh the irony, if the EU overrule the sugar tax.
They won't over-rule a tax. They might a ban, though, as a quantitative restriction (or a measure equivalent thereto) not properly justified by public health.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
...and substitute sugar for aspartame.. nice
Either way he wins - slimmer kids or more revenue with the added bonus it takes the sting out of the rest of the budget. He won't be PM but he's nobody's fool.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
...and substitute sugar for aspartame.. nice
Either way he wins - slimmer kids or more revenue with the added bonus it takes the sting out of the rest of the budget. He won't be PM but he's nobody's fool.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
...and substitute sugar for aspartame.. nice
Either way he wins - slimmer kids or more revenue with the added bonus it takes the sting out of the rest of the budget. He won't be PM but he's nobody's fool.
Just checked the papers and the Beeb - job done. It really is 2 lumps for George so far.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
...and substitute sugar for aspartame.. nice
Either way he wins - slimmer kids or more revenue with the added bonus it takes the sting out of the rest of the budget. He won't be PM but he's nobody's fool.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Do they? The diet/low sugar versions of the two drinks that I buy, Lilt and Ribena taste a hell of a lot different.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Do they? The diet/low sugar versions of the two drinks that I buy, Lilt and Ribena taste a hell of a lot different.
and are probably as bad for you as the real versions (esp Ribena, full of aspartame)
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
...and substitute sugar for aspartame.. nice
SugarBabes to rename themselves The Aspartame Babes?
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Do they? The diet/low sugar versions of the two drinks that I buy, Lilt and Ribena taste a hell of a lot different.
You must be a sensitive soul though Christ only knows how you got addicted to those two Looks like the treasury is on a winner with you.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Do they? The diet/low sugar versions of the two drinks that I buy, Lilt and Ribena taste a hell of a lot different.
and are probably as bad for you as the real versions (esp Ribena, full of aspartame)
Tbh I can't stand the diet versions of any drink. Think I'll stick to Carlsberg.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Do they? The diet/low sugar versions of the two drinks that I buy, Lilt and Ribena taste a hell of a lot different.
and are probably as bad for you as the real versions (esp Ribena, full of aspartame)
Aspartame? No thanks. I'd rather pay the extra for sugar.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
It could well cut consumption - especially when most sugar free alternatives have an identical taste.
Do they? The diet/low sugar versions of the two drinks that I buy, Lilt and Ribena taste a hell of a lot different.
and are probably as bad for you as the real versions (esp Ribena, full of aspartame)
Tbh I can't stand the diet versions of any drink. Think I'll stick to Carlsberg.
Would probably be better for society if fizzy drinks with a high sugar content were illegal rather than made more expensive.. if the govt really thinks obesity etc is such a big deal
The aim is to raise money, not to cut consumption, cf also tobacco and alcohol. The government has manoeuvred itself into the sweet spot of looking as if it has been pushed into something. Any government is always happy to be pressured to raise tax.
Yes, I just think the aim should be to cut consumption... as I said earlier, why not tax theft or contract killing?
We should cut out the middle man and just tax body-weight.
I cut out alcohol and sugary drinks for a long while, and when I drank a coke or cider it tasted like pure sugar, actually hurt my teeth.. disgusting. It is just a case of making the break.. if kids never got the chance to drink drinks high in sugar, they wouldn't miss them
Now I mix sparkling water with them, if I bother at all, and they actually taste better, and are obviously more healthy
I don't drink pop much myself, and there is evidence that artificial sweeteners stimulate the brain the same way as sugar, so driving appettite. Fizzy water is quite acidic, as are fruit juices, so can be bad for teeth too.
If you think UK drinks sweet then try Thums Up Cola in India. That really is sweet - combined with Indian sweets you can see why diabetes is rampant there.
The ability to use the bonus for housebuying or pension buying is useful and means it is helpful to a wider income spectrum, but does seem a bit of a confused policy objective: surely you should incentivise long term (quasi-pension) and medium term (homebuying) saving in separate pots, not together?
I think this is intended to address the problem that people don't save into pensions because they see them as inflexible and the payout too remote. That being the case, having a single pot rather than two pots is a better incentive.
It will be worth reading the details of this carefully, maybe Mr Meeks would care to give us the fruits of his wisdom once he has spent his valuable time debriefing his well paying clients.
Anecdotal evidence from my peer group (30s and 40s, professional or skilled workers, mixture of employed and self-employed, most having worked abroad at some point) suggests that pensions are unpopular due to inflexibility, low returns, high fees and high housing costs competing for income. Those with pensions only have them because an employer contributed.
Low returns? Flippin heck, 20% (or evn 40%) is added to your money. The returns are huge.
Comments
Anyhow, it's been suggested (plausibly) that Garland wasn't Obama's first choice and that younger and more liberal candidates might have already turned down the suicide mission.
Rotherham has 1,100 private hire and taxi drivers, 47 have just lost their licenses - another 171 drivers suspended because they'd not completed compulsory training sessions on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. And then this trial is just starting >
"In what police say is the largest child sexual exploitation (CSE) investigation in the country - bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Rotherham - the men face a combined total of 59 charges, including rape, sexual activity with a child under 16 and trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation."
Read more: http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/crime/child-sexual-abuse-ring-in-halifax-25-men-charged-police-reaction-1-7096362#ixzz434WXhbfS
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/chairman-waysmeans/
I like a Guinness, but that has 5 teaspoons full in each pint
I actually bought some cider and took it back after I read it had so much sugar in
Prosecco is the best apparently, unless you like straight Vodka (or w lime and soda)
Holland & Barrett protein shakes, supposedly healthy, contain 12 sugars per scoop.. no wonder the fat wasn't shifting!
Osborne would have been better off telling everyone "LOOK AT THE CARBS (OF WHICH SUGARS) CONTENT... DIVIDE BY 4 AND THATS HOW MANY SUGARS IN YOUR DRINK"
or put a big spoon symbol on every drink with a big number next to it highlighting the teaspoons of sugar...education
tax shmax, bloody socialist
Is that requirement going to change ?
News UK News The Budget
'Next generation' Budget was like George Osborne turning up at a job interview blind drunk and burping contempt
Anecdotal evidence from my peer group (30s and 40s, professional or skilled workers, mixture of employed and self-employed, most having worked abroad at some point) suggests that pensions are unpopular due to inflexibility, low returns, high fees and high housing costs competing for income. Those with pensions only have them because an employer contributed.
The sugar tax is nanny state nonsense.
The issue is how to do it and there's a trade off between allowances, tax efficiency and timescale.
The continuing problem re encouraging savings is the mediocre returns because of long term low interest rates and stock market underperformance.
And those are controlled by the economy's fundamental difficulties.
Its worth remembering that while GDP increased 2.2% in 2015 it increased by only 1.5% per capita.
There's certainly going to be no more boom.
But at some point there will be another bust.
That should tell you just how appalling I find the Leave side.
But its not something the average saver or employee is going to think of - my ISAs are filled with foreign stocks yet even my default assumption is still about UK investment returns.
I suspect that the vast majority of people will have their pensions investments in whatever the default option their company provides and any ISAs will either be cash or in a few big name UK blue chip shares.
I guess the key figure is the percentage of those with no previous pension provision who are opting out of auto-enrolment - those who already bother with pensions aren't so much of a concern.
Now I mix sparkling water with them, if I bother at all, and they actually taste better, and are obviously more healthy
On the second, yes, I agree that's the key figure. It's probably available somewhere but I couldn't find it with a quick bit of Googling.
Looks like the treasury is on a winner with you.
If you think UK drinks sweet then try Thums Up Cola in India. That really is sweet - combined with Indian sweets you can see why diabetes is rampant there.
I'm confused ;-/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35822047
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD