My guess is that in the autumn of next year, following Ms Sturgeon’s resignation in the wake of another referendum defeat, Mr Salmond would survey the SNP leadership contenders and find them wanting.
His conclusion, honestly reached after much consideration, would be that none of them could do the job as well as he could....Alex Salmond would be back. Big Eck redux. Cometh the hour, cometh the big man. And this time, no more Mister Nice Guy.
Ridiculous rule! Seems to have no sense behind it and is only there to screw over people who haven't read the small print, if the ball hits the woodwork after it is dead then fair enough but so long as the ball was alive when it hit the woodwork it should count.
Harmonise corpn. tax to US level (i.e. also level with income tax rates and stop trying to become a tax haven, that's for the Caymans, you fool)
Just as a point of order, the US states have different corporation tax levels. Also, no-one actually pays the official US corporate tax rate, S&P500 companies paid an average of 20% of profits in tax against a federal corporate tax rate of 35%.
Plus we pay 20% VAT on our takings and then pay corporation tax on top of that, there's no VAT in the USA. The proposal in America to introduce a "20% border-adjusted corporation tax" is essentially a 20% VAT with a deduction allowed for payroll expenses [which we don't get here] and then no traditional corporation tax on top of that.
I know that's how the BTA is being sold, but it's not actually VAT. Also, US states do already (mostly) have sales taxes.
The BTA is a tariff on imports and a subsidy on exports, pure and simple.
US state sales taxes average at about 5-7% not 20%
My point was more about the BTA, but you are absolutely correct about sales taxes.
The point about the BTA is that firms, when calculating corporation tax expense, are allowed to offset domestic costs (i.e. payroll, or buying from a domestic supplier), but not foreign costs. This makes all foreign products 15% more expensive. Furthermore, any exports you make are not included in your calculations.
This isn't how a Value Added Tax works, and those who sell the BTA as a value added tax are either misinformed or deliberately lying. The effect of the BTA is to act as an across the board 15% (or 20%) tariff on imported products.
Furthermore, the way the BTA is currently written makes it exceedingly likely to be used for shell games. Say you are a biotech company with revenues of nothing and costs of $200m an year. It's now in your interest to set up a subsidiary that buys $200m of Chinese goods for Walmart, and sells it for $201m. It won't affect your tax bill, as you're already losing $200m a year, but it will make you a few quid on the way through. It also makes shell companies with tax loss carryforwards very valuable. Finally, it's not clear how you avoid inter-corporate transfer pricing games. Let's say you have a Canadian subsidiary that mines zirconium. You want to minimise the price at which you import the zirconium for tax reasons, so you now claim the value of the product you bought was $0.01/kg.
This time last year Cameron was the most powerful man in the country. Now he is virtually anonymous... How quickly power shifts.
Oddly enough, I find it reassuring that Cameron and Clegg, for everything that happened in Coalition, have maintained a relationship.
Whether we will come to look at the 2010-15 Government as a beacon of stability and order remains to be seen but I'm glad Cameron and Clegg's personal relationship has survived. It shows how much some things transcend politics.
Yes, it's nice to see they've maintained their personal friendship... Clegg would have every right to be bitter about what happened to him and his party in 2015... Like Cameron is with Gove, Boris after they helped destroy his Premiership.
Ridiculous rule! Seems to have no sense behind it and is only there to screw over people who haven't read the small print, if the ball hits the woodwork after it is dead then fair enough but so long as the ball was alive when it hit the woodwork it should count.
People are not trees you can plant in one part of the country and reasonably expect to stay there. And that's without considering a seemingly major shift in devolution, which would also (I would guess, we may see) involve carving England into pieces.
Mr. Thompson, I saw that. Later, as 'a gesture of goodwill' they did pay out, but it was a ridiculous decision initially.
My point was more about the BTA, but you are absolutely correct about sales taxes.
The point about the BTA is that firms, when calculating corporation tax expense, are allowed to offset domestic costs (i.e. payroll, or buying from a domestic supplier), but not foreign costs. This makes all foreign products 15% more expensive. Furthermore, any exports you make are not included in your calculations.
This isn't how a Value Added Tax works, and those who sell the BTA as a value added tax are either misinformed or deliberately lying. The effect of the BTA is to act as an across the board 15% (or 20%) tariff on imported products.
Furthermore, the way the BTA is currently written makes it exceedingly likely to be used for shell games. Say you are a biotech company with revenues of nothing and costs of $200m an year. It's now in your interest to set up a subsidiary that buys $200m of Chinese goods for Walmart, and sells it for $201m. It won't affect your tax bill, as you're already losing $200m a year, but it will make you a few quid on the way through. It also makes shell companies with tax loss carryforwards very valuable. Finally, it's not clear how you avoid inter-corporate transfer pricing games. Let's say you have a Canadian subsidiary that mines zirconium. You want to minimise the price at which you import the zirconium for tax reasons, so you now claim the value of the product you bought was $0.01/kg.
As far as I can tell it is the way VAT works. I pay each month for my Point of Sales system in US dollars, I don't get to deduct any of what I paid for that from my VAT bill.
Since VAT can be reclaimed abuses like that can work under VAT too. If you're VAT registered and spend more on VAT than you take in then you can end up getting paid by the Treasury the excess VAT you paid out. Expect a VAT inspection if that happens regularly though to make sure everything is above board and that should happen with shell companies too.
Since VAT can be reclaimed abuses like that can work under VAT too. If you're VAT registered and spend more on VAT than you take in then you can end up getting paid by the Treasury the excess VAT you paid out. Expect a VAT inspection if that happens regularly though to make sure everything is above board and that should happen with shell companies too.
Yep, you get plenty of VAT inspections when you're an exporter.
When you're strictly B2B export then you see VAT for what it is, purely a balance sheet item.
When you're B2P within the UK then it feels like a tax I guess - although the true situation is that you are an unpaid consumption tax collector for HMRC - as your 'other side' (General public) can't reclaim...
You may notice some obvious geographical differences between Australia and the UK... If there were an equivalent visa for, say, 'urban Britain', it wouldn't stop people getting sponsored to work in London but then living in Brexitshire.
On this instance but how many others have the screwed out of what they thought they were betting on and won by inserting this clause into the small print?
If the bet is meant to be "hits the woodwork and stays in play" it should say that in the bet, rather than hidden in the small print.
Immigration will surely depend on the industry needs and how they fit the new immigration criteria?
Yes, but (crudely) East Anglia needs more vegetable pickers than bankers and London vice-versa. Mrs McTurnip is convinced Scotland needs a devolved immigration policy to cope with Scotland's booming economy just because. Provided it can be managed effectively then I don't see why not. Of course once people lose their jobs/seek employment out of area we'll get the usual sob stories & hand wringers objecting to people facing the consequences of law breaking.....but hey ho...they'd find something to hand wring about anyway.....
While the chancellor inherited most of these benefit changes from his predecessor, he did announce a 2 percentage point increase in the Class 4 national insurance paid by the self-employed to coincide with the abolition of flat rate class 2 national insurance. This is a welcome and progressive change that will mean the bottom 54 per cent of self-employed earners pay less national insurance, or none at all. Those earning over £16,250 will pay more, with anyone earning over £50,000 paying a little over £600 more tax each year. At a household level these national insurance changes are highly progressive, with the majority of revenue raised coming from the top ten per cent of households.
While the chancellor inherited most of these benefit changes from his predecessor, he did announce a 2 percentage point increase in the Class 4 national insurance paid by the self-employed to coincide with the abolition of flat rate class 2 national insurance. This is a welcome and progressive change that will mean the bottom 54 per cent of self-employed earners pay less national insurance, or none at all. Those earning over £16,250 will pay more, with anyone earning over £50,000 paying a little over £600 more tax each year. At a household level these national insurance changes are highly progressive, with the majority of revenue raised coming from the top ten per cent of households.
On this instance but how many others have the screwed out of what they thought they were betting on and won by inserting this clause into the small print?
If the bet is meant to be "hits the woodwork and stays in play" it should say that in the bet, rather than hidden in the small print.
Mr. Thompson, depends on the job. Most writers, for example, sell low thousands or just hundreds of each book. Mr. T is really a massive outlier with his sales/income.
F1: Perez reckons Force India has identified some weakness which can be fixed but will take a few races, so pace may improve a fair bit over the first four races.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
I think there is a complete lack of understanding about the sustainability of our current government model. Ever larger numbers of retired people, with ever more expensive healthcare needs, paid for by a diminishing number of working age people.
If Tory MPs force an amendment on NIC changes, should Labour support it or accept this viewpoint:
Duncan WeldonVerified account @DuncanWeldon 20h20 hours ago
Dear the left: stop attacking a broadly progressive tax rise that also removes an incentive to game self-employment & hit revenues. Thanks.
Why not address your reply to the Tory MPs (who I don't think would describe themselves as 'the left')? The NIC rise will hit freelancing which gives the country a mobile flexible workforce. I think that there will be unintended consequences if this goes ahead.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
I think there is a complete lack of understanding about the sustainability of our current government model. Ever larger numbers of retired people, with ever more expensive healthcare needs, paid for by a diminishing number of working age people.
So what is the solution? Massively reducing government expenditure is a very easy thing to do in theory, but it has real world consequences for real people - and many millions of them.
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
I think there is a complete lack of understanding about the sustainability of our current government model. Ever larger numbers of retired people, with ever more expensive healthcare needs, paid for by a diminishing number of working age people.
So what is the solution? Massively reducing government expenditure is a very easy thing to do in theory, but it has real world consequences for real people - and many millions of them.
I don't have a solution, but I do think we all need to acknowledge the problems, and recognise what is causing them.
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Not looking good for Le Pen in todays Opinioway poll.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
What does he do in social media that is so appallingly paid? Or is he creating a new product and paying himself a pittance whilst in start up mode?
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a left-wing opposition to make capital out of a clear breach of a manifesto commitment. Any manifesto commitment.
We see here the difference in style between Corbyn and McDonnell. Corbyn made very little of the increase, and in my view that's because it doesn't affect the kind of voter who Corbyn instinctively represents - people dependent on public services, the poor, the unemployed, refugees - and quite possibly he has no strong feelings about the change. McDonnell is a streetwise politician, and is all over it.
I personally like Corbyn's rock-like integrity and unwillingness to score cheap hits. But in the political world as it is, I do see that McDonnell is right to take the opportunity.
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Have you seen the wages for assistant managers and managers at Aldi?
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Anacedotal Stories of teacher lay offs isn't really the true picture. There are more teachers than ever and plenty of unfilled vacancies. Like GPs, it is demand is increasing, while funding in real terms static / minor increase ie state isn't shrinking, more it isn't expanding fast enough.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a left-wing opposition to make capital out of a clear breach of a manifesto commitment. Any manifesto commitment.
We see here the difference in style between Corbyn and McDonnell. Corbyn made very little of the increase, and in my view that's because it doesn't affect the kind of voter who Corbyn instinctively represents - people dependent on public services, the poor, the unemployed, refugees - and quite possibly he has no strong feelings about the change. McDonnell is a streetwise politician, and is all over it.
I personally like Corbyn's rock-like integrity and unwillingness to score cheap hits. But in the political world as it is, I do see that McDonnell is right to take the opportunity.
The rock-like integrity that saw him take money from an Iranian government that hangs homosexuals and permits women to be stoned to death.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Since spending now is 50% higher than a decade ago, yet "services have been getting cut" for most of that decade, and inflation has been virtually non-existant in that time ... where do you think all that extra money has gone?
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a left-wing opposition to make capital out of a clear breach of a manifesto commitment. Any manifesto commitment.
We see here the difference in style between Corbyn and McDonnell. Corbyn made very little of the increase, and in my view that's because it doesn't affect the kind of voter who Corbyn instinctively represents - people dependent on public services, the poor, the unemployed, refugees - and quite possibly he has no strong feelings about the change. McDonnell is a streetwise politician, and is all over it.
I personally like Corbyn's rock-like integrity and unwillingness to score cheap hits. But in the political world as it is, I do see that McDonnell is right to take the opportunity.
Thing is, Nick, as per Nick Robinson's McD interview this morning, you guys still haven't worked out your position on non-blue collar workers such as management consultants and the like.
Take that poor social media guy Paul.
Earning £12k/year now = Labour core target. Once successful, earning £120k/year = Lab class enemy.
Not looking good for Le Pen in todays Opinioway poll.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
And that is the problem. In spite of the idiotic screaming by the Left about austerity, no one has actually really tried to do anything about Government spending. It continues to rise year after year - in 2005 it was just below £500 billion a year and in 2016 it was almost £750 billion a year. Such increases are simply unsustainable and we need real cuts in the size of the State and a real change in what we expect the State to be doing.
Yet the Conservatives under Cameron and now it seems May have resolutely failed to address the spending in large parts of the State. Areas such as the NHS and Education have been ring-fenced from any reductions so the axe has fallen disproportionately on other sectors.
I understand the politics of that but it makes no sense in terms of a holistic view of what the State should be doing and how efficient it is at doing it. There comes a point when funding reductions seriously impair the ability of a public service to operate as we saw in the 1990s.
We also have the absurd position we spend more on managing the debt in terms of interest payments than we do on defending the country yet all we hear from some Conservatives is how we should be spending more on defence.
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Have you seen the wages for assistant managers and managers at Aldi?
Not looking good for Le Pen in todays Opinioway poll.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
Fillon clawing back the deficit against Macron and getting through was Le Pen's best chance in my opinion. If, despite all his scandal problems, she is now losing ground against him in a run-off scenario, it is difficult to see a path for her to win, without serious events intervening.
This time last year Cameron was the most powerful man in the country. Now he is virtually anonymous... How quickly power shifts.
Oddly enough, I find it reassuring that Cameron and Clegg, for everything that happened in Coalition, have maintained a relationship.
Whether we will come to look at the 2010-15 Government as a beacon of stability and order remains to be seen but I'm glad Cameron and Clegg's personal relationship has survived. It shows how much some things transcend politics.
Agreed again.
For all the jokes, I think I'm the only person who also thinks it is heartening that Corbyn and Abbott have remained such close allies and friends for decades after their association in the past.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Since spending now is 50% higher than a decade ago, yet "services have been getting cut" for most of that decade, and inflation has been virtually non-existant in that time ... where do you think all that extra money has gone?
Surely the key data point is spending as a percentage of GDP. Has that gone up by 50% over the last decade?
Phil Hammond has made a rookie mistake with the NIC change. It's a rather strange error for a number of reasons:
- It was an entirely unforced error. As he himself said, he could have simply decided not to go ahead with Osborne's planned abolition of Class II NICs, which wouldn't have broken the manifesto commitment. In any case, it doesn't actually raise very much.
- Some of the blame should go on to Osborne and Cameron, who should never have made the pledge in the first place. Still, Hammond should have seen that breaking the pledge was toxic.
- On the other hand, pretty much everyone (except representatives of small businesses and, oddly, some Tory MPs) agrees that the change is, in itself, fair and justified.
- However, Hammond lost the possibility of defending the measure on its own merits by the way he presented it. If he was determined to break the pledge, he should have been up-front about it, emphasising that circumstances have changed, and also put more emphasis on the fact that Class II NICs are being abolished. As it is, he's looking shifty because he is simultaneously arguing that he's not breaking the manifesto pledge and arguing that the measure is justified because circumstances have changed; he can't have it both ways.
It is, in summary, a bit of a disaster, and an unnecessary one.
Not looking good for Le Pen in todays Opinioway poll.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
Fillon clawing back the deficit against Macron and getting through was Le Pen's best chance in my opinion. If, despite all his scandal problems, she is now losing ground against him in a run-off scenario, it is difficult to see a path for her to win, without serious events intervening.
My French is limited but now centrist Juppe is ruled out and Fillon is in full Sarko mode - well he is making a pitch for Le Pen socially conservative voters rather than Macron liberal urban types.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
I think there is a complete lack of understanding about the sustainability of our current government model. Ever larger numbers of retired people, with ever more expensive healthcare needs, paid for by a diminishing number of working age people.
So what is the solution? Massively reducing government expenditure is a very easy thing to do in theory, but it has real world consequences for real people - and many millions of them.
I don't have a solution, but I do think we all need to acknowledge the problems, and recognise what is causing them.
Phil Hammond has made a rookie mistake with the NIC change. It's a rather strange error for a number of reasons:
- It was an entirely unforced error. As he himself said, he could have simply decided not to go ahead with Osborne's planned abolition of Class II NICs, which wouldn't have broken the manifesto commitment. In any case, it doesn't actually raise very much.
- Some of the blame should go on to Osborne and cameron, who should never have made the pledge in the first place. Still, Hammond should have seen that breaking the pledge was toxic.
- On the other hand, pretty much everyone (except, representatives of small businesses and, oddly, some Tory MPs) agrees that the change is, in itself, fair and justified.
- However, Hammond lost the possibility of defending the measure on its own merits by the way he presented it. If he was determined to break the pledge, he should have been up-front about it, emphasising that circumstances have changed, and also put more emphasis on the fact that Class II NICs are being abolished. As it is, he's looking shifty because he is simultaneously arguing that he's not breaking the manifesto pledge and arguing that the measure is justified because circumstances have changed; he can't have it both ways.
It is, in summary, a bit of a disaster, and an unnecesary one.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Since spending now is 50% higher than a decade ago, yet "services have been getting cut" for most of that decade, and inflation has been virtually non-existant in that time ... where do you think all that extra money has gone?
Inflation has averaged 3% a year over the last decade.
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Have you seen the wages for assistant managers and managers at Aldi?
Not looking good for Le Pen in todays Opinioway poll.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
Fillon clawing back the deficit against Macron and getting through was Le Pen's best chance in my opinion. If, despite all his scandal problems, she is now losing ground against him in a run-off scenario, it is difficult to see a path for her to win, without serious events intervening.
My French is limited but now centrist Juppe is ruled out and Fillon is in full Sarko mode - well he is making a pitch for Le Pen socially conservative voters rather than Macron liberal urban types.
"Le terrorisme islamique"
I am increasingly thinking it is likely to be a Fillon vs Macron run-off. I suspect that what we've seen in the Netherlands, with PVV dropping off as the elections gets close, is going to happen in France too. And I suspect a lot of those FN voters - whose big bugbear is with Islamic immigration - will go to Les Republicains.
My forecast:
Macron 26% Fillon 23% Le Pen 21%
I have been adjusting my book by making small Fillon bets.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Since spending now is 50% higher than a decade ago, yet "services have been getting cut" for most of that decade, and inflation has been virtually non-existant in that time ... where do you think all that extra money has gone?
Inflation has averaged 3% a year over the last decade.
We need to strip out both inflation and population growth to obtain true comparable figures.
Not looking good for Le Pen in todays Opinioway poll.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
Fillon clawing back the deficit against Macron and getting through was Le Pen's best chance in my opinion. If, despite all his scandal problems, she is now losing ground against him in a run-off scenario, it is difficult to see a path for her to win, without serious events intervening.
My French is limited but now centrist Juppe is ruled out and Fillon is in full Sarko mode - well he is making a pitch for Le Pen socially conservative voters rather than Macron liberal urban types.
"Le terrorisme islamique"
I am increasingly thinking it is likely to be a Fillon vs Macron run-off. I suspect that what we've seen in the Netherlands, with PVV dropping off as the elections gets close, is going to happen in France too. And I suspect a lot of those FN voters - whose big bugbear is with Islamic immigration - will go to Les Republicains.
My forecast:
Macron 26% Fillon 23% Le Pen 21%
I have been adjusting my book by making small Fillon bets.
A Macron-Fillon run off would be utterly stonking.
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Have you seen the wages for assistant managers and managers at Aldi?
Phil Hammond has made a rookie mistake with the NIC change. It's a rather strange error for a number of reasons:
- It was an entirely unforced error. As he himself said, he could have simply decided not to go ahead with Osborne's planned abolition of Class II NICs, which wouldn't have broken the manifesto commitment. In any case, it doesn't actually raise very much.
- Some of the blame should go on to Osborne and Cameron, who should never have made the pledge in the first place. Still, Hammond should have seen that breaking the pledge was toxic.
- On the other hand, pretty much everyone (except representatives of small businesses and, oddly, some Tory MPs) agrees that the change is, in itself, fair and justified.
- However, Hammond lost the possibility of defending the measure on its own merits by the way he presented it. If he was determined to break the pledge, he should have been up-front about it, emphasising that circumstances have changed, and also put more emphasis on the fact that Class II NICs are being abolished. As it is, he's looking shifty because he is simultaneously arguing that he's not breaking the manifesto pledge and arguing that the measure is justified because circumstances have changed; he can't have it both ways.
It is, in summary, a bit of a disaster, and an unnecessary one.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a left-wing opposition to make capital out of a clear breach of a manifesto commitment. Any manifesto commitment.
Absolutely. That's politics and its fair game. If there is a good reason for the breach, the government can tell us. If there isn't a good reason (eg it was always stupid in the first place), they can try to pretend it is not a breach but that is not advisable. Either way the opposition calls them out on it, and they need to justify the breach.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Since spending now is 50% higher than a decade ago, yet "services have been getting cut" for most of that decade, and inflation has been virtually non-existant in that time ... where do you think all that extra money has gone?
Inflation has averaged 3% a year over the last decade.
We need to strip out both inflation and population growth to obtain true comparable figures.
I also used a calculator that used CPI rather than RPI. People seem to have a mental blank post financial crisis of when annual inflation almost hit 5%
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
There will be a massively negative effect on people no matter what you do or don't do. We certainly do not have the money as a country to sustain the sorts of welfare systems that we currently have. And it doesn't matter how much you tax people that will always be the case. Governments need to start being honest about this for start. Welfare should be a safety net for those most in need not a means of maintaining people in a middle class lifestyle. You can signal this straight away by getting rid of all those bribes for the elderly. Make people working past retirement age continue to pay tax and NI just as they did before. Dump all the little bribes that have built up over the years. It won't save a fortune to start with but it will help to signal a fundamental change in what Government is meant to be there for.
Welfare should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Nor should it be there to make life 'easier' or for social engineering. No one earning more than the average wage should be getting government handouts. Also make companies take more responsibility for the welfare of their employees. They have made a start with compulsory workplace pensions. Extend that to compulsory health insurance for all employees.
Also get rid of the idea that if you have paid in to our system you must get something back. A safety net works by making sure that those who are in real need are supported by those who are not. That means that there will be some who pay but do not directly receive just as there will be those who receive but do not pay. This should be the norm not the exception.
Not looking good for Le Pen in todays Opinioway poll.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
Fillon clawing back the deficit against Macron and getting through was Le Pen's best chance in my opinion. If, despite all his scandal problems, she is now losing ground against him in a run-off scenario, it is difficult to see a path for her to win, without serious events intervening.
My French is limited but now centrist Juppe is ruled out and Fillon is in full Sarko mode - well he is making a pitch for Le Pen socially conservative voters rather than Macron liberal urban types.
"Le terrorisme islamique"
I am increasingly thinking it is likely to be a Fillon vs Macron run-off. I suspect that what we've seen in the Netherlands, with PVV dropping off as the elections gets close, is going to happen in France too. And I suspect a lot of those FN voters - whose big bugbear is with Islamic immigration - will go to Les Republicains.
My forecast:
Macron 26% Fillon 23% Le Pen 21%
I have been adjusting my book by making small Fillon bets.
Think Macron v Fillon is now a real possiblity which I had discounted up to now and was my worst result in the final two market. I have now rectified that.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Since spending now is 50% higher than a decade ago, yet "services have been getting cut" for most of that decade, and inflation has been virtually non-existant in that time ... where do you think all that extra money has gone?
Surely the key data point is spending as a percentage of GDP. Has that gone up by 50% over the last decade?
I don't see why that is the key data point, though yes it is higher now than it was a decade ago.
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Have you seen the wages for assistant managers and managers at Aldi?
If it's Macron v Fillon the most damaging thing that can be thrown at Macron is that he's the continuity Hollande candidate. He'll need to do something striking on economic reform to appeal to right-wing voters.
The left is totally irrelevant in all of this. It is nowhere near to power and has no impact on government decision-making. Just cutting is not a sustainable policy either, because it would cause unmitigated and disastrous hardship for millions and millions of people. The social consequences of that are unknowable, but are unlikely to be good.
It is the Left who scream about every supposed cut the Government makes and who set the whole tone of the debate. Just as UKIP didn't have to be in power to set the tone that led to Brexit, the Left do not have to be in power to make people think we are living in an age of austerity when nothing could be further from the truth. Your comments on cuts being a disaster is a classic example of this.
Spending cuts and freezes are already having a huge and negative impact on the NHS, social care, education and council services. And that's before you even begin to look at welfare. If you think a smaller state is the solution, then it is incumbent on you to explain how to achieve one without inflicting further harm on real people. Blaming the left for decisions being taken by Conservative ministers is ever so slightly silly.
What cuts and freezes? Spending is still going up and is making no difference at all.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Since spending now is 50% higher than a decade ago, yet "services have been getting cut" for most of that decade, and inflation has been virtually non-existant in that time ... where do you think all that extra money has gone?
Inflation has averaged 3% a year over the last decade.
Yes and so do the maths and our spending is significantly higher in real terms. So if services are getting cut and spending is going up in real terms, where is the money going?
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
There will be a massively negative effect on people no matter what you do or don't do. We certainly do not have the money as a country to sustain the sorts of welfare systems that we currently have. And it doesn't matter how much you tax people that will always be the case. Governments need to start being honest about this for start. Welfare should be a safety net for those most in need not a means of maintaining people in a middle class lifestyle. You can signal this straight away by getting rid of all those bribes for the elderly. Make people working past retirement age continue to pay tax and NI just as they did before. Dump all the little bribes that have built up over the years. It won't save a fortune to start with but it will help to signal a fundamental change in what Government is meant to be there for.
Welfare should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Nor should it be there to make life 'easier' or for social engineering. No one earning more than the average wage should be getting government handouts. Also make companies take more responsibility for the welfare of their employees. They have made a start with compulsory workplace pensions. Extend that to compulsory health insurance for all employees.
Also get rid of the idea that if you have paid in to our system you must get something back. A safety net works by making sure that those who are in real need are supported by those who are not. That means that there will be some who pay but do not directly receive just as there will be those who receive but do not pay. This should be the norm not the exception.
That's just for starters :-)
Far far too radical for the electorate to accept. I seem to recall Osborne in opposition at one point talking more realistically about our situation, and Tory numbers went down until they stopped.
Commons Library confirm for me: "Government will have to introduce separate primary legislation" (to introduce any National Insurance rise) March 9, 2017
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Have you seen the wages for assistant managers and managers at Aldi?
Don't let Morris Dancer see that map. Those Germans have carved up England!
We have M&S, Waitrose and Aldi in my town and I have to say the staff in Aldi are more energetic, mainly because they're a lot younger. They zap the products faster than I can put them in the bag. I quite like the uncertainty over what's going to be on special offer, allied with the lack of choice in staples! Too much choice is baaaad
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Bloody hell. He should just apply for a job at B& Q or something.
Have you seen the wages for assistant managers and managers at Aldi?
Phil Hammond has made a rookie mistake with the NIC change. It's a rather strange error for a number of reasons:
- It was an entirely unforced error. As he himself said, he could have simply decided not to go ahead with Osborne's planned abolition of Class II NICs, which wouldn't have broken the manifesto commitment. In any case, it doesn't actually raise very much.
- Some of the blame should go on to Osborne and Cameron, who should never have made the pledge in the first place. Still, Hammond should have seen that breaking the pledge was toxic.
- On the other hand, pretty much everyone (except representatives of small businesses and, oddly, some Tory MPs) agrees that the change is, in itself, fair and justified.
- However, Hammond lost the possibility of defending the measure on its own merits by the way he presented it. If he was determined to break the pledge, he should have been up-front about it, emphasising that circumstances have changed, and also put more emphasis on the fact that Class II NICs are being abolished. As it is, he's looking shifty because he is simultaneously arguing that he's not breaking the manifesto pledge and arguing that the measure is justified because circumstances have changed; he can't have it both ways.
It is, in summary, a bit of a disaster, and an unnecessary one.
It's odd, isn't it. You have these highly intelligent people running government, and Hammond is one such person. The government must have done some kind of risk analysis over this issue, so why have they made such a mess of it? Like you say, had he been completely up front and explained why the manifesto pledge had to be changed, then this fuss would have been a lot less hysterical. I personally believe it is the right thing to do, but the politics, as ever, take primary position.
Of course Labour will wail and gnash their teeth, but I don't think the public will fall for their faux outrage. They have been screaming for more funding for social care - they have it - and now they are condeming the way the money has been raised.
Commons Library confirm for me: "Government will have to introduce separate primary legislation" (to introduce any National Insurance rise) March 9, 2017
Just when you thought the French election couldn't get any stranger, the French press is running articles claiming François Hollande is thinking of jumping in at the last moment, and has a stock of nominations ready to be submitted:
If journos dont like a minor increase in their NI, they can always vote labour and get this instead.
The Tories are very lucky to be facing people like Corbyn and McDonnell, rarely do such unpalatable people rise to the leadership of a mainstream political party.
Just when you thought the French election couldn't get any stranger, the French press is running articles claiming François Hollande is thinking of jumping in at the last moment, and has a stock of nominations ready to be submitted:
Edited extra bit: got to say I'm not tempted. Hollande is hugely unpopular, would seem to be dipping into the Macron pool, and if it doesn't happen then I doubt there'd be a hedging opportunity.
Of course, a thousand-to-one shot would be lovely.
If it's Macron v Fillon the most damaging thing that can be thrown at Macron is that he's the continuity Hollande candidate. He'll need to do something striking on economic reform to appeal to right-wing voters.
We really need a poll or two showing head to heads between Macron and Fillon. Last poll was at the end of January when the Fillon scandal first hit the news and Macron was ahead fairly comfortably 58-42. However, Fillon appears to have stabilised a little over the past few days and he would be far more likely to gain Le Pen second round preferences than Macron.
If it's Macron v Fillon, then it would mean Fillon has improved his overall position a little and the result would be very close.
Just when you thought the French election couldn't get any stranger, the French press is running articles claiming François Hollande is thinking of jumping in at the last moment, and has a stock of nominations ready to be submitted
I suppose in different circumstances that strategy could work well in a Presidential system. "Now you've seen the alternatives, why not stick with me?"
Edited extra bit: got to say I'm not tempted. Hollande is hugely unpopular, would seem to be dipping into the Macron pool, and if it doesn't happen then I doubt there'd be a hedging opportunity.
Of course, a thousand-to-one shot would be lovely.
Spending may be going up but services are being severely cut. That's just a matter of fact. Schools are laying off teachers, social care is in meltdown, even something as prosaic as bin collection is being restricted.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
There will be a massively negative effect on people no matter what you do or don't do. We certainly do not have the money as a country to sustain the sorts of welfare systems that we currently have. And it doesn't matter how much you tax people that will always be the case. Governments need to start being honest about this for start. Welfare should be a safety net for those most in need not a means of maintaining people in a middle class lifestyle. You can signal this straight away by getting rid of all those bribes for the elderly. Make people working past retirement age continue to pay tax and NI just as they did before. Dump all the little bribes that have built up over the years. It won't save a fortune to start with but it will help to signal a fundamental change in what Government is meant to be there for.
Welfare should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Nor should it be there to make life 'easier' or for social engineering. No one earning more than the average wage should be getting government handouts. Also make companies take more responsibility for the welfare of their employees. They have made a start with compulsory workplace pensions. Extend that to compulsory health insurance for all employees.
Also get rid of the idea that if you have paid in to our system you must get something back. A safety net works by making sure that those who are in real need are supported by those who are not. That means that there will be some who pay but do not directly receive just as there will be those who receive but do not pay. This should be the norm not the exception.
That's just for starters :-)
Far far too radical for the electorate to accept. I seem to recall Osborne in opposition at one point talking more realistically about our situation, and Tory numbers went down until they stopped.
The point being that once all the normal Ponzi schemes that the Government runs to prop up the system have failed this is exactly what is going to have to happen.
If it's Macron v Fillon the most damaging thing that can be thrown at Macron is that he's the continuity Hollande candidate. He'll need to do something striking on economic reform to appeal to right-wing voters.
We really need a poll or two showing head to heads between Macron and Fillon. Last poll was at the end of January when the Fillon scandal first hit the news and Macron was ahead fairly comfortably 58-42. However, Fillon appears to have stabilised a little over the past few days and he would be far more likely to gain Le Pen second round preferences than Macron.
If it's Macron v Fillon, then it would mean Fillon has improved his overall position a little and the result would be very close.
I think Fillon vs Macron would be very very hard to call. Neither terrifies the voters in the way Le Pen does causing everyone who isn't her support to rush over to the other side. France has elected plenty of crooks before, and Fillon has "Les republicans" banner (Well it got Trump over the line in the USA) - I'd expect Le Pen voters also to broadly support Fillon
I think Fillon vs Macron would be very very hard to call. Neither terrifies the voters in the way Le Pen does causing everyone who isn't her support to rush over to the other side. France has elected plenty of crooks before, and Fillon has "Les republicans" banner (Well it got Trump over the line in the USA) - I'd expect Le Pen voters also to broadly support Fillon
Very hard to call, perhaps evens the pair ?
I'd still make Macron favourite, and by quite a margin. Don't forget that it would only be Le Pen voters whose support might be up for grabs, but also supporters of Hamon and Mélenchon.
Comments
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uttar-pradesh-election-news-bookies-betting-market-gambling-bjp-samajwadi-party-congress/1/895650.html
Exit polls for Uttar Pradesh due out in the next couple of hours.
The point about the BTA is that firms, when calculating corporation tax expense, are allowed to offset domestic costs (i.e. payroll, or buying from a domestic supplier), but not foreign costs. This makes all foreign products 15% more expensive. Furthermore, any exports you make are not included in your calculations.
This isn't how a Value Added Tax works, and those who sell the BTA as a value added tax are either misinformed or deliberately lying. The effect of the BTA is to act as an across the board 15% (or 20%) tariff on imported products.
Furthermore, the way the BTA is currently written makes it exceedingly likely to be used for shell games. Say you are a biotech company with revenues of nothing and costs of $200m an year. It's now in your interest to set up a subsidiary that buys $200m of Chinese goods for Walmart, and sells it for $201m. It won't affect your tax bill, as you're already losing $200m a year, but it will make you a few quid on the way through. It also makes shell companies with tax loss carryforwards very valuable. Finally, it's not clear how you avoid inter-corporate transfer pricing games. Let's say you have a Canadian subsidiary that mines zirconium. You want to minimise the price at which you import the zirconium for tax reasons, so you now claim the value of the product you bought was $0.01/kg.
Yes, it's nice to see they've maintained their personal friendship... Clegg would have every right to be bitter about what happened to him and his party in 2015... Like Cameron is with Gove, Boris after they helped destroy his Premiership.
https://twitter.com/betvictor/status/839716974523461632
https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/187-
People are not trees you can plant in one part of the country and reasonably expect to stay there. And that's without considering a seemingly major shift in devolution, which would also (I would guess, we may see) involve carving England into pieces.
Mr. Thompson, I saw that. Later, as 'a gesture of goodwill' they did pay out, but it was a ridiculous decision initially.
Since VAT can be reclaimed abuses like that can work under VAT too. If you're VAT registered and spend more on VAT than you take in then you can end up getting paid by the Treasury the excess VAT you paid out. Expect a VAT inspection if that happens regularly though to make sure everything is above board and that should happen with shell companies too.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/luis-louis-ladbrokes-life.html?m=1
When you're strictly B2B export then you see VAT for what it is, purely a balance sheet item.
When you're B2P within the UK then it feels like a tax I guess - although the true situation is that you are an unpaid consumption tax collector for HMRC - as your 'other side' (General public) can't reclaim...
If the bet is meant to be "hits the woodwork and stays in play" it should say that in the bet, rather than hidden in the small print.
While the chancellor inherited most of these benefit changes from his predecessor, he did announce a 2 percentage point increase in the Class 4 national insurance paid by the self-employed to coincide with the abolition of flat rate class 2 national insurance. This is a welcome and progressive change that will mean the bottom 54 per cent of self-employed earners pay less national insurance, or none at all. Those earning over £16,250 will pay more, with anyone earning over £50,000 paying a little over £600 more tax each year. At a household level these national insurance changes are highly progressive, with the majority of revenue raised coming from the top ten per cent of households.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/09/circumstances-have-moved-on-hammond-defends-breaking-tory-manifesto-promise-on-nics-politics-live?page=with:block-58c11b6be4b00bd41ba50243#block-58c11b6be4b00bd41ba50243
That seems to play into the cash-in-hand, don't-declare-your-income stereotype ...
Bookie: I'm your mate.
Punter: NO YOU'RE FCKING NOT!
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/you-dont-have-to-be-hypocritical-coward.html?m=1
Duncan WeldonVerified account @DuncanWeldon 20h20 hours ago
Dear the left: stop attacking a broadly progressive tax rise that also removes an incentive to game self-employment & hit revenues. Thanks.
As for welfare it should be a minimum safety net and nothing more. It certainly should not be a viable alternative to work or a means of building a client state with the whole country dependent on the Government for handouts.
The NIC rise will hit freelancing which gives the country a mobile flexible workforce. I think that there will be unintended consequences if this goes ahead.
Lots of things should happen. If you want a much smaller state, tell us how to get there without it having a massively negative effect on millions of people.
Scrolling down
£12k social media business owner: gains £126
PAUL benefited from the Chancellor’s vow to spare the low-earning self-employed.
He works 86 hours a week to keep his fledgling freelance social media business going and makes £12,000 a year.
Changes to National Insurance will give him £126.20 more in 2018, and £106.80 the year after.
Paul who lives with pregnant wife Emma, 31, and son Oscar, six, in Worthing, West Sussex, said: “It sounds a small amount but is a lot for a family not earning much.
“It’d be great if the government could provide more help for small businesses.”
He earns under £3 per hour and when the second is born, they will be entitled to £7752 pa in tax credits, possibly more if the kid is unable to pay attention at school.
Second round polling shows her losing 64-36 to Macron, but what is really surprising is the gap between herself and Fillon if he got through to the run-off.
The gap between her and Fillon was down to just 12 points three days ago. Today the gap has doubled, to 62-38
http://presicote.factoviz.com/index/more/id/qoo_lew_1
We see here the difference in style between Corbyn and McDonnell. Corbyn made very little of the increase, and in my view that's because it doesn't affect the kind of voter who Corbyn instinctively represents - people dependent on public services, the poor, the unemployed, refugees - and quite possibly he has no strong feelings about the change. McDonnell is a streetwise politician, and is all over it.
I personally like Corbyn's rock-like integrity and unwillingness to score cheap hits. But in the political world as it is, I do see that McDonnell is right to take the opportunity.
30-57k!
https://www.aldirecruitment.co.uk/stores/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-39213756
This is about Vault 7
https://youtu.be/AMRLZLRI5lM
Take that poor social media guy Paul.
Earning £12k/year now = Labour core target.
Once successful, earning £120k/year = Lab class enemy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/revealed-john-mcdonnell-calls-20-per-cent-wealth-tax-richest/
If journos dont like a minor increase in their NI, they can always vote labour and get this instead.
For all the jokes, I think I'm the only person who also thinks it is heartening that Corbyn and Abbott have remained such close allies and friends for decades after their association in the past.
- It was an entirely unforced error. As he himself said, he could have simply decided not to go ahead with Osborne's planned abolition of Class II NICs, which wouldn't have broken the manifesto commitment. In any case, it doesn't actually raise very much.
- Some of the blame should go on to Osborne and Cameron, who should never have made the pledge in the first place. Still, Hammond should have seen that breaking the pledge was toxic.
- On the other hand, pretty much everyone (except representatives of small businesses and, oddly, some Tory MPs) agrees that the change is, in itself, fair and justified.
- However, Hammond lost the possibility of defending the measure on its own merits by the way he presented it. If he was determined to break the pledge, he should have been up-front about it, emphasising that circumstances have changed, and also put more emphasis on the fact that Class II NICs are being abolished. As it is, he's looking shifty because he is simultaneously arguing that he's not breaking the manifesto pledge and arguing that the measure is justified because circumstances have changed; he can't have it both ways.
It is, in summary, a bit of a disaster, and an unnecessary one.
"Le terrorisme islamique"
My forecast:
Macron 26%
Fillon 23%
Le Pen 21%
I have been adjusting my book by making small Fillon bets.
who gives a shit ?
Westminster bubble reinflates
Welfare should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Nor should it be there to make life 'easier' or for social engineering. No one earning more than the average wage should be getting government handouts. Also make companies take more responsibility for the welfare of their employees. They have made a start with compulsory workplace pensions. Extend that to compulsory health insurance for all employees.
Also get rid of the idea that if you have paid in to our system you must get something back. A safety net works by making sure that those who are in real need are supported by those who are not. That means that there will be some who pay but do not directly receive just as there will be those who receive but do not pay. This should be the norm not the exception.
That's just for starters :-)
Thanks for alerting me to that possiblity.
Good call!
Really wish Fillon had dropped out, though. Would've been in a tasty position then.
Chris Leslie (@ChrisLeslieMP)
Commons Library confirm for me: "Government will have to introduce separate primary legislation" (to introduce any National Insurance rise)
March 9, 2017
Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak)
spanner in works from @ChrisLeslieMP -NICs can't be part of normal Budget Bill-so has to be separate legislation-easier to defeat
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/09/circumstances-have-moved-on-hammond-defends-breaking-tory-manifesto-promise-on-nics-politics-live?page=with:block-58c1312fe4b0bd9dcee56f8a#block-58c1312fe4b0bd9dcee56f8a
Of course Labour will wail and gnash their teeth, but I don't think the public will fall for their faux outrage. They have been screaming for more funding for social care - they have it - and now they are condeming the way the money has been raised.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/2017/03/09/35003-20170309ARTFIG00114-spectateur-de-la-campagne-francois-hollande-trepigne.php
They do, however, admit this is 'very unlikely'!
Edited extra bit: got to say I'm not tempted. Hollande is hugely unpopular, would seem to be dipping into the Macron pool, and if it doesn't happen then I doubt there'd be a hedging opportunity.
Of course, a thousand-to-one shot would be lovely.
If it's Macron v Fillon, then it would mean Fillon has improved his overall position a little and the result would be very close.
Very hard to call, perhaps evens the pair ?
Opinion polling for 2012 was astonishingly accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2012