UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
This is a succes.
The purpose of Brexit was to reduce net immigration and increase upward pressure on wages for strurdy British Yeomen like my good self,
LOL, but, although It’s quite a while now now since I worked in a hospital, I didn’t think that doctors wages were in any way related to those of nurses!
UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
Well who needs all the houses then ?
I think town and city centres are going to be utterly kaiboshed in terms of shops shortly, I can't remember the last time I went into Sheffield City Centre (Or Rotherham, or Coventry) to buy ANYTHING. Maybe we should stick the houses there instead
Rents for restaurants and bars will decline, as demand from traditional retail falls.
Sell over leveraged owners of retail property, buy those who benefit from falling rents.
Coffee shops and hairdressers are booming.
Other than that it’s betting shops (high profit) and charity shops (no rates) that seem to dominate, with the odd chain convenience store on top.
Betting shops are about to take a big hit, with it reported today that the government will be imposing a £2 stake limit on the casino machines.
I was speaking to a nurse earlier today and she told me by far the biggest wasted cost in the NHS is old people staying in hospital beds because, even though they are good to go home, there are no carers or care home.places available.
We badly need a better funded social care system. The costs are all showing up in the NHS.
I had a very very similar conversation today with a colleague. Social care seems to be in a very bad way, and it is an area I'd truly hope the parties could get together on. Alas.
One of the problems is that care workers are badly paid but care home fees are mysteriously very high despite this.
So what should be done ?
Fund it better. It's a shame that the last attempt was so cynically exploited for political ends but we must keep trying. The NHS depends on it.
The problem is
You seem to have answered your own question - it has to be and arm of the State via higher taxes.
The best undertaxed source of wealth is property. We should start there.
Indeed -- and there
That is a huge encouragement to downsize once your children leave home & your house is too big for you.
Houses in New Jersey seem to be much bigger than UK ones, the average new build 'family home' contains around the same 1100 sq foot as he was saying was too small for his family. The biggest problem here is property is listed first by bedroom, then area. What matters is floorspace more than a tiny box room imo...
Further, 3000+ sq ft is probably a bit excessive for a couple but I don't think a good size UK 4 bed of ~ 1500-1600 sq ft is
Not just in the USA, but also in continental
Our current housing stock isn't great, and what's being built is getting worse no matter how well you photo 3/4 size furniture.
Yes, considering the essentially private sector nature of building, they aren't great at producing what the customer wants. It is a sellers market, nearly any crap new build is saleable.
I had a very very similar conversation today with a colleague. Social care seems to be in a very bad way, and it is an area I'd truly hope the parties could get together on. Alas.
One of the problems is that care workers are badly paid but care home fees are mysteriously very high despite this.
Yet most of the Social Care sector is teetering on the brink of financial collapse and bankrupcy:
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
The number one thing I have picked up from buying property in Hungary is to concentrate on the price per square metre. It’s served me very well recently.
At least in London, I think estate agents are not too bad at sticking to the market price per square metre (or foot).
But you have to do your own research. When buying a family home last year I nerdily compiled a spreadsheet on approximate price per square foot in various areas, based on samples of recent sales. My wife found it all very tedious.
I had a very very similar conversation today with a colleague. Social care seems to be in a very bad way, and it is an area I'd truly hope the parties could get together on. Alas.
One of the problems is that care workers are badly paid but care home fees are mysteriously very high despite this.
Yet most of the Social Care sector is teetering on the brink of financial collapse and bankrupcy:
Houses in New Jersey seem to be much bigger than UK ones, the average new build 'family home' contains around the same 1100 sq foot as he was saying was too small for his family. The biggest problem here is property is listed first by bedroom, then area. What matters is floorspace more than a tiny box room imo...
Further, 3000+ sq ft is probably a bit excessive for a couple but I don't think a good size UK 4 bed of ~ 1500-1600 sq ft is
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
The number one thing I have picked up from buying property in Hungary is to concentrate on the price per square metre. It’s served me very well recently.
Yep, it’s the same pretty much everywhere else in the world, but for some reason not a number that estate agents and developers talk about too much in the UK.
UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
Well who needs all the houses then ?
I think town and city centres are going to be utterly kaiboshed in terms of shops shortly, I can't remember the last time I went into Sheffield City Centre (Or Rotherham, or Coventry) to buy ANYTHING. Maybe we should stick the houses there instead
Rents for restaurants and bars will decline, as demand from traditional retail falls.
Sell over leveraged owners of retail property, buy those who benefit from falling rents.
Coffee shops and hairdressers are booming.
Other than that it’s betting shops (high profit) and charity shops (no rates) that seem to dominate, with the odd chain convenience store on top.
Don't forget nail bars and vape shops. For a town of c 23k people, Potters Bar has loads of them.
UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
Well who needs all the houses then ?
I think town and city centres are going to be utterly kaiboshed in terms of shops shortly, I can't remember the last time I went into Sheffield City Centre (Or Rotherham, or Coventry) to buy ANYTHING. Maybe we should stick the houses there instead
Rents for restaurants and bars will decline, as demand from traditional retail falls.
Sell over leveraged owners of retail property, buy those who benefit from falling rents.
Coffee shops and hairdressers are booming.
Other than that it’s betting shops (high profit) and charity shops (no rates) that seem to dominate, with the odd chain convenience store on top.
Betting shops are about to take a big hit, with it reported today that the government will be imposing a £2 stake limit on the casino machines.
So will people laundering drug money using these machines.
UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
Well who needs all the houses then ?
I think town and city centres are going to be utterly kaiboshed in terms of shops shortly, I can't remember the last time I went into Sheffield City Centre (Or Rotherham, or Coventry) to buy ANYTHING. Maybe we should stick the houses there instead
Rents for restaurants and bars will decline, as demand from traditional retail falls.
Sell over leveraged owners of retail property, buy those who benefit from falling rents.
Coffee shops and hairdressers are booming.
Other than that it’s betting shops (high profit) and charity shops (no rates) that seem to dominate, with the odd chain convenience store on top.
Don't forget nail bars and vape shops. For a town of c 23k people, Potters Bar has loads of them.
True. “Social” shops that require a physical visit, or that people will pay for the social experience, will be ok. Others will struggle.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
I was speaking to a nurse earlier today and she told me by far the biggest wasted cost in the NHS is old people staying in hospital beds because, even though they are good to go home, there are no carers or care home.places available.
We badly need a better funded social care system. The costs are all showing up in the NHS.
I had a very olleague. Social care seems to be in a very bad way, and it is an area I'd truly hope the parties could get together on. Alas.
One of the problems is that care workers are badly paid but care home fees are mysteriously very high despite this.
Yet most of the Social Care sector is teetering on the brink of financial collapse and bankrupcy:
Fund it better. It's a shame that the last attempt was so cynically exploited for political ends but we must keep trying. The NHS depends on it.
You seem to have answered your own question - it has to be and arm of the State via higher taxes.
But who should pay the higher taxes ?
I suspect most people think it should be 'people like them' and not 'people like me'.
As an aside, I would move away from private provision towards direct state provision over time - private enterprise has failed miserably to provide social care efficiently and effectively. As AndyJS pointed out earlier "One of the problems is that care workers are badly paid but care home fees are mysteriously very high despite this."
Direct state provision is not a panacea to the problems of the uk. My county council is quite rare in that it has retained in house quite a substantial adult care directly employed stafff and homes/. There is nothing particularly efficient or better about it. The county also has private and charitable care homes that like the council run ones get the fees paid for by the council of eligible. My mum is in a charitable one. It makes no profit. I know the chairman. There’s no swiz, they can only break even from the fees they get from their non council funded residents.
County council care homes the council will pay residential fees of £640 a week for private homes offering the same level of care the council will pay £500 a week.
If you want to increase the level of public care homes, it’s going to cost more. That’s not more to increase capacity, it’s more just to do the same thing.
UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
Well who needs all the houses then ?
I think town and city centres are going to be utterly kaiboshed in terms of shops shortly, I can't remember the last time I went into Sheffield City Centre (Or Rotherham, or Coventry) to buy ANYTHING. Maybe we should stick the houses there instead
Rents for restaurants and bars will decline, as demand from traditional retail falls.
Sell over leveraged owners of retail property, buy those who benefit from falling rents.
Coffee shops and hairdressers are booming.
Other than that it’s betting shops (high profit) and charity shops (no rates) that seem to dominate, with the odd chain convenience store on top.
Betting shops are about to take a big hit, with it reported today that the government will be imposing a £2 stake limit on the casino machines.
So will people laundering drug money using these machines.
They’ll probably go back to buying and selling jewellery and cars, like they always used to before some idiots decided to allow a dozen casinos to open on every high street.
I see from various sources that Boris Johnson is proposing an amnesty for long-standing ‘illegal’ immigrants.
I remember the abuse for Nick Clegg when he suggested it.
Boris has always been pro-immigration. It gives the lie to those remainers who say Brexit is all about deporting foreigners, and also to Brexiteers who say the same thing. There was no question about immigration on the ballot paper, and most of the prominent leave campaigners had called for more immigration. Whatever people thought they were voting for, it was not that.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
An amnesty would be a wonderful way of encouraging more illegal immigration, and a slap in the face to those who jumped through the hoops to come here legally. What's the point if you can just break the law, wait a while, and then be allowed to stay?
We are all entitled to define ourselves in any way we want. We can swear personal fealty to Forfar Athletic, to heavy metal, to anarchism. It’s a free country. Knock yourself out. Decide you’re a dog person. Get a Jacob Rees-Mogg tattoo. Get religion. Become a vegetarian. Become whatever. Be who you want to be.
The trouble starts when politicians decide that they, not you, are going to edit your identity. They will decide what layers are allowed in your sense of yourself. Brexit has been instructive on this. Anyone who values their European identity has been told that any political or democratic expression of their Europeanism will no longer be permitted. Their personal stake in Europe will be removed.
I see from various sources that Boris Johnson is proposing an amnesty for long-standing ‘illegal’ immigrants.
I remember the abuse for Nick Clegg when he suggested it.
Boris has always been pro-immigration. It gives the lie to those remainers who say Brexit is all about deporting foreigners, and also to Brexiteers who say the same thing. There was no question about immigration on the ballot paper, and most of the prominent leave campaigners had called for more immigration. Whatever people thought they were voting for, it was not that.
Agreed. I am not sure an amnesty is the best way to do things as I think it does undermine efforts to prevent illegal migration. Far better to have a complete change of policy so that those coming here to work are able to and only those who are genuinely undesirable (criminals or threats to security) ate kept out.
Mulling over some potential bets and saw a new special: "Ferrari & Mercedes Double Points Finish, McLaren & Force India cars to be classified & Williams not to score a point"
Was tempted, until I realised I'd missed the McLaren name there. Far too many contingencies to back at just 6, particularly given what happened last year. Anyway, will consider some other things and have a think about them.
In fact, the debate on pb.com shows the problems of fixing social care.
Everyone wants their elderly parents to be looked after at less cost than present, and they want their houses to be bigger without any property tax increases.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care or not. You are suggesting a system that bankrupts people who are already in difficult personal circumstances and leaves the lucky ones with their wealth.
A wealth tax pools that risk and reduces the individual burden.
I see from various sources that Boris Johnson is proposing an amnesty for long-standing ‘illegal’ immigrants.
I remember the abuse for Nick Clegg when he suggested it.
Boris has always been pro-immigration. It gives the lie to those remainers who say Brexit is all about deporting foreigners, and also to Brexiteers who say the same thing. There was no question about immigration on the ballot paper, and most of the prominent leave campaigners had called for more immigration. Whatever people thought they were voting for, it was not that.
You must not have seen the Vote Leave "hospital" ad then
I was speaking to a nurse earlier today and she told me by far the biggest wasted cost in the NHS is old people staying in hospital beds because, even though they are good to go home, there are no carers orNHS.
I had a very very similar conversation today with a colleague. Social care seems to be in a very bad way, and it is an area I'd truly hope the parties could get together on. Alas.
One of the problems is that care workers are badly paid but care home fees are mysteriously very high despite this.
Yet most of the Social Care sector is teetering on the brink of financial collapse and bankrupcy:
Houses in New Jersey seem to be much bigger than UK ones, the average new build 'family home' contains around the same 1100 sq foot as he was saying was too small for his family. The biggest problem here is property is listed first by bedroom, then area. What matters is floorspace more than a tiny box room imo...
Further, 3000+ sq ft is probably a bit excessive for a couple but I don't think a good size UK 4 bed of ~ 1500-1600 sq ft is
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
Houses are priced on a psf basis though even if they aren’t advertised as that
' What can we do to combat this? In short, be sceptical. If you’re told something eyebrow-raising, look for a primary source to back it up. Try to get context. '
The fake news - crops are unharvested because migrant workers have been driven away.
Did you check the primary source ie the ONS agricultural jobs or were you guilty of wishful thinking and failed to 'scrutinise carefully a story that confirms your prejudices' ?
You seem to think the claims are inconsistent. You have made a claim I haven't commented on, but you have dismissed a claim that I have made for which on different occasions I have provided a good deal of evidence.
Your 'evidence' appears to be unqueried anecdotes from people with a vested interest reported in biased newspapers.
Have you looked for a 'primary source document' to back your 'evidence' up ?
Have you 'tried to get context' ?
Have you been 'especially sceptical of information that produces a strong emotional response from you.' ?
Have you 'asked yourself who wants to produce that response' ?
When a variety of named farmers assert, when it is not obviously in their interests to do so, that they have had crops that they have been unable to pick because of labour shortages, including details of the specific crops and the quantities lost, I believe them. No, I don’t go around conducting personal inspections. Your one attempt at this was to report from observation that there were no obvious agricultural labour shortages in December - hardly a surprise.
The government, which presumably does conduct check-ups, seems to accept what the farmers are telling them. You seem to be determined, in the face of abundant different sources, to disbelieve them. Sometimes determined incredulity can be more irrational than taking numerous different reports at face value.
Tennis: as ever, patchy than Patchy McPatchface, so do at your own risk.
Backed Paire to beat Busta in straight sets (2-0) in the Barcelona open at 4.5 (Ladbrokes, with boost). He has a 3-2 winning record, and of those, 2/3 were straight sets.
F1: worth considering Verstappen/Ricciardo to top FP1 at 11 (each way, fifth odds for top three), with small stakes. The other big teams tend to sandbag more, and Ricciardo has topped one of three FP1's so far this year, as well as Red Bull dominating the practice times in 2017.
Mr. P, piffle. The EU and Europe are not the same thing. This weird love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA, or an F1 fan going all gooey over the FIA.
UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
Well who needs all the houses then ?
I think town and city centres are going to be utterly kaiboshed in terms of shops shortly, I can't remember the last time I went into Sheffield City Centre (Or Rotherham, or Coventry) to buy ANYTHING. Maybe we should stick the houses there instead
Rents for restaurants and bars will decline, as demand from traditional retail falls.
Sell over leveraged owners of retail property, buy those who benefit from falling rents.
Coffee shops and hairdressers are booming.
Other than that it’s betting shops (high profit) and charity shops (no rates) that seem to dominate, with the odd chain convenience store on top.
Betting shops are about to take a big hit, with it reported today that the government will be imposing a £2 stake limit on the casino machines.
Worse than that.
As well as the loss of profits from FOBT, taxes are going to be increased on other forms of gambling to make up the shortfall in income to the Treasury.
' What can we do to combat this? In short, be sceptical. If you’re told something eyebrow-raising, look for a primary source to back it up. Try to get context. '
The fake news - crops are unharvested because migrant workers have been driven away.
Did you check the primary source ie the ONS agricultural jobs or were you guilty of wishful thinking and failed to 'scrutinise carefully a story that confirms your prejudices' ?
You seem to think the claims are inconsistent. You have made a claim I haven't commented on, but you have dismissed a claim that I have made for which on different occasions I have provided a good deal of evidence.
Your 'evidence' appears to be unqueried anecdotes from people with a vested interest reported in biased newspapers.
Have you looked for a 'primary source document' to back your 'evidence' up ?
Have you 'tried to get context' ?
Have you been 'especially sceptical of information that produces a strong emotional response from you.' ?
Have you 'asked yourself who wants to produce that response' ?
When a variety of named farmers assert, when it is not obviously in their interests to do so, that they have had crops that they have been unable to pick because of labour shortages, including details of the specific crops and the quantities lost, I believe them. No, I don’t go around conducting personal inspections. Your one attempt at this was to report from observation that there were no obvious agricultural labour shortages in December - hardly a surprise.
The government, which presumably does conduct check-ups, seems to accept what the farmers are telling them. You seem to be determined, in the face of abundant different sources, to disbelieve them. Sometimes determined incredulity can be more irrational than taking numerous different reports at face value.
Surprised you prefer anecdotes to data
I'm not questioning the data. I'm surprised that so many first hand accounts are dismissed by Leavers. Even Michael "had enough of experts" Gove apparently accepts them.
Houses in New Jersey seem to be much bigger than UK ones, the average new build 'family home' contains around the same 1100 sq foot as he was saying was too small for his family. The biggest problem here is property is listed first by bedroom, then area. What matters is floorspace more than a tiny box room imo...
Further, 3000+ sq ft is probably a bit excessive for a couple but I don't think a good size UK 4 bed of ~ 1500-1600 sq ft is
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
Houses are priced on a psf ba)sis though even if they aren’t advertised as that
I think that is obvious when you look at surveyors' valuations.
It is curious though that so little attention is given to the area in marketing. I was looking at some new build near Dundee recently. They had a 5 bed which actually had a significantly (10%+) smaller area than one of their 4 beds. In a couple of the "bedrooms" any cat getting its morning swing was going to suffer multiple concussions. Surely if people did not want this nonsense builders wouldn't build it?
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care or not. You are suggesting a system that bankrupts people who are already in difficult personal circumstances and leaves the lucky ones with their wealth.
A wealth tax pools that risk and reduces the individual burden.
It’s not either or.
I think that people who have savings and assets for rainy days should use them when those rainy days come.
Too many such people, as the outrage last year showed, seem to think that others should pay so that their own assets can remain untouched and pass down to their children. That seems to me to be both selfish and inequitable.
UK said farewell to 4,000 nurses and midwives from European Economic Area in past year, with only 800 arriving
Well who needs all the houses then ?
I think town and city centres are going to be utterly kaiboshed in terms of shops shortly, I can't remember the last time I went into Sheffield City Centre (Or Rotherham, or Coventry) to buy ANYTHING. Maybe we should stick the houses there instead
Rents for restaurants and bars will decline, as demand from traditional retail falls.
Sell over leveraged owners of retail property, buy those who benefit from falling rents.
Coffee shops and hairdressers are booming.
Other than that it’s betting shops (high profit) and charity shops (no rates) that seem to dominate, with the odd chain convenience store on top.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
From recollection U.K. residential property is worth about £7 *trillion* Even a 1% rate on that would raise about £70bn per year. Once you eliminate 50% of council tax (to cover cost of central government mandates) and stamp duty I think you have about £40bn to play with.
Personally I would put £10bn towards eliminating/reducing economically damaging taxes (eg employer NICs), £15bn to deficit reduction and £15bn to social care (with additional social care funds from some sort of insurance / direct contribution)
In fact, the debate on pb.com shows the problems of fixing social care.
Everyone wants their elderly parents to be looked after at less cost than present, and they want their houses to be bigger without any property tax increases.
A lot of the costs of care homes are incurred meeting standards required by the regulatory authorities. These require quite high staff ratios, high levels of medical expertise and major investment in infrastructure. Many of these requirements are driven by earlier scandals of course but we treat too many retirement homes as if they were offering palliative care rather than a helping hand. By failing to differentiate the needs of the residents more we make it more expensive for everyone.
Mr. P, piffle. The EU and Europe are not the same thing. This weird love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA
Not this crap again
If "love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA", Brexiteers would be proposing we leave FIFA and hold our own World Cup.
The government of the day is telling us that we are no longer citizens of Europe.
That is why people will not "get over it"
It is the government. It’s the people. They voted very clearly in a referendum to leave the EU. To no longer be citizens of a member state of the EU. That’s the thing about democracy. You might not like the results of democratic votes, but you can’t deny the authenticity of the referendum.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care or not. You are suggesting a system that bankrupts people who are already in difficult personal circumstances and leaves the lucky ones with their wealth.
A wealth tax pools that risk and reduces the individual burden.
If money is raised via a wealth tax, then the first call on that pot of money should be the young. We should reduce (or better still remove) tuition fees at universities.
Your proposal simply increases the already massive inter-generational unfairness. Still more tax money will be spent on a generation that have been remarkably blessed.
(To be clear, my mother died of dementia -- for which you have to fund your own care since at least the days of New Labour. We sold her house to pay for it. I didn’t receive any money when she died. I am happy with that.
Your proposal would have given me an additional inheritance windfall, which I don’t need.)
Houses in New Jersey seem to be much bigger than UK ones, the average new build 'family home' contains around the same 1100 sq foot as he was saying was too small for his family. The biggest problem here is property is listed first by bedroom, then area. What matters is floorspace more than a tiny box room imo...
Further, 3000+ sq ft is probably a bit excessive for a couple but I don't think a good size UK 4 bed of ~ 1500-1600 sq ft is
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
Houses are priced on a psf ba)sis though even if they aren’t advertised as that
I think that is obvious when you look at surveyors' valuations.
It is curious though that so little attention is given to the area in marketing. I was looking at some new build near Dundee recently. They had a 5 bed which actually had a significantly (10%+) smaller area than one of their 4 beds. In a couple of the "bedrooms" any cat getting its morning swing was going to suffer multiple concussions. Surely if people did not want this nonsense builders wouldn't build it?
I doubt many people use the 5th bedroom as such though (may be as a spare room if they have 3 kids). More likely to be a study or something.
Mr. P, piffle. The EU and Europe are not the same thing. This weird love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA
Not this crap again
If "love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA", Brexiteers would be proposing we leave FIFA and hold our own World Cup.
The government of the day is telling us that we are no longer citizens of Europe.
That is why people will not "get over it"
I continue to be a citizen of Europe even if I am no longer a citizen of the EU. Europe and the EU are not synonymous.
What has happened is the reverse of what happened when the Maastricht Treaty was enacted here and, as we have seen on this forum, some people did not “get over” having EU citizenship given to them. For the moment they are in the majority.
In fact, the debate on pb.com shows the problems of fixing social care.
Everyone wants their elderly parents to be looked after at less cost than present, and they want their houses to be bigger without any property tax increases.
The Conservatives tried that at the election, and lost their majority.
Labour flirted with a garden tax, and it was the one issue that hurt them in the final week. Possibly decisively.
Rule 101 of politics: You. Don’t. Touch. People’s. Houses.
Houses in New Jersey seem to be much bigger than UK ones, the average new build 'family home' contains around the same 1100 sq foot as he was saying was too small for his family. The biggest problem here is property is listed first by bedroom, then area. What matters is floorspace more than a tiny box room imo...
Further, 3000+ sq ft is probably a bit excessive for a couple but I don't think a good size UK 4 bed of ~ 1500-1600 sq ft is
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
Houses are priced on a psf ba)sis though even if they aren’t advertised as that
I think that is obvious when you look at surveyors' valuations.
It is curious though that so little attention is given to the area in marketing. I was looking at some new build near Dundee recently. They had a 5 bed which actually had a significantly (10%+) smaller area than one of their 4 beds. In a couple of the "bedrooms" any cat getting its morning swing was going to suffer multiple concussions. Surely if people did not want this nonsense builders wouldn't build it?
I doubt many people use the 5th bedroom as such though (may be as a spare room if they have 3 kids). More likely to be a study or something.
Since there wasn't an obvious wall to put a bed against and no cupboard space you are probably right. But I find the obsession with the number of rooms as opposed to the size of them perverse. I would take fewer, bigger rooms every time.
' What can we do to combat this? In short, be sceptical. If you’re told something eyebrow-raising, look for a primary source to back it up. Try to get context. '
The reality - agricultural jobs at their highest for twenty years.
Are you suggesting that crops didn't go unharvested? Because that really would be fake news.
You seem to think the claims are inconsistent. You have made a claim I haven't commented on, but you have dismissed a claim that I have made for which on different occasions I have provided a good deal of evidence.
Your 'evidence' appears to be unqueried anecdotes from people with a vested interest reported in nse' ?
ent reports at face value.
Surprised you prefer anecdotes to data
I'm ts them.
Anecdotes are not fact and can be used to shape a narrative which is in direct conflict with available data. An example. Recently a primary head teacher in my county told a conference how the children at his school were so poor (one assumes in the anticipation of no longer being eligible fore the free school meals they already weren’t getting) that they would come back from school holidays ashen faced and thin. This was quickly presented as evidence of austerity etc. For twelve years all reception and year six children are weighed as part of the national measuring programme across England. The figures can be broke down per county. They show overweight, obese, healthy weight and underweight. In my county we have an increase in overweight and obesity at reception. But on the levels of underweight it’s a completely flat line. From 2006 to now there’s no change, same for the England line.
So there’s no measurable change in those underweight either at a county level or a national level in primary school children, in fact in this county the rate is a bit lower than the country as a whole.
His anecdote might be real, but to extrapolate anything more from it creates a false narrative.
' What can we do to combat this? In short, be sceptical. If you’re told something eyebrow-raising, look for a primary source to back it up. Try to get context. '
The fake news - crops are unharvested because migrant workers have been driven away.
Did you check the primary source ie the ONS agricultural jobs or were you guilty of wishful thinking and failed to 'scrutinise carefully a story that confirms your prejudices' ?
You seem to think the claims are inconsistent. You have made a claim I haven't commented on, but you have dismissed a claim that I have made for which on different occasions I have provided a good deal of evidence.
Your 'evidence' appears to be unqueried anecdotes from people with a vested interest reported in biased newspapers.
Have you looked for a 'primary source document' to back your 'evidence' up ?
Have you 'tried to get context' ?
Have you been 'especially sceptical of information that produces a strong emotional response from you.' ?
Have you 'asked yourself who wants to produce that response' ?
When a variety of named farmers assert, when it is not obviously in their interests to do so, that they have had crops that they have been unable to pick because of labour shortages, including details of the specific crops and the quantities lost, I believe them. No, I don’t go around conducting personal inspections. Your one attempt at this was to report from observation that there were no obvious agricultural labour shortages in December - hardly a surprise.
The government, which presumably does conduct check-ups, seems to accept what the farmers are telling them. You seem to be determined, in the face of abundant different sources, to disbelieve them. Sometimes determined incredulity can be more irrational than taking numerous different reports at face value.
Surprised you prefer anecdotes to data
Do we have a link to the data?
I suspect it’s the sort of job that will be rendered redundant or obsolete in 15 years time anyway due to AI or changing economies in Europe and here.
In fact, the debate on pb.com shows the problems of fixing social care.
Everyone wants their elderly parents to be looked after at less cost than present, and they want their houses to be bigger without any property tax increases.
The Conservatives tried that at the election, and lost their majority.
Labour flirted with a garden tax, and it was the one issue that hurt them in the final week. Possibly decisively.
Rule 101 of politics: You. Don’t. Touch. People’s. Houses.
Mr. P, piffle. The EU and Europe are not the same thing. This weird love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA
Not this crap again
If "love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA", Brexiteers would be proposing we leave FIFA and hold our own World Cup.
The government of the day is telling us that we are no longer citizens of Europe.
That is why people will not "get over it"
It is the government. It’s the people. They voted very clearly in a referendum to leave the EU. To no longer be citizens of a member state of the EU. That’s the thing about democracy. You might not like the results of democratic votes, but you can’t deny the authenticity of the referendum.
While I agree that we voted to leave, I don’t think you can call a 52:48 majority ‘clear’!
Mr. P, piffle. The EU and Europe are not the same thing. This weird love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA
Not this crap again
If "love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA", Brexiteers would be proposing we leave FIFA and hold our own World Cup.
The government of the day is telling us that we are no longer citizens of Europe.
That is why people will not "get over it"
I continue to be a citizen of Europe even if I am no longer a citizen of the EU. Europe and the EU are not synonymous.
What has happened is the reverse of what happened when the Maastricht Treaty was enacted here and, as we have seen on this forum, some people did not “get over” having EU citizenship given to them. For the moment they are in the majority.
I viewed EU citizenship as an imposition, not a blessing.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care or not. You are suggesting a system that bankrupts people who are already in difficult personal circumstances and leaves the lucky ones with their wealth.
A wealth tax pools that risk and reduces the individual burden.
It’s not either or.
I think that people who have savings and assets for rainy days should use them when those rainy days come.
Too many such people, as the outrage last year showed, seem to think that others should pay so that their own assets can remain untouched and pass down to their children. That seems to me to be both selfish and inequitable.
Like you, I found those who thought that they had a right to hand down an extremely valuable family home to their children and that society as a whole should pick up the costs of their care to allow this both greedy and more than slightly weird. It is very unfortunate that what was basically a sound idea was handled so ineptly. We now face more of social care being met from general taxation once again accentuating inter-generational unfairness.
OT. For those interested according to the Jewish groups meeting Corbyn yesterday one of the sticking points was his refusal to sign up to this. I have to say I'm not at all surprised. To agree to this sort of declaration is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are pohave too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care ohe individual burden.
It’s not either or.
I think that people who have savings and assets for rainy days should use them when those rainy days come.
Too many such people, as the outrage last year showed, seem to think that others should pay so that their own assets can remain untouched and pass down to their children. That seems to me to be both selfish and inequitable.
Like you, I found those who thought that they had a right to hand down an extremely valuable family home to their children and that society as a whole should pick up the costs of their care to allow this both greedy and more than slightly weird. It is very unfortunate that what was basically a sound idea was handled so ineptly. We now face more of social care being met from general taxation once again accentuating inter-generational unfairness.
You already have to use the family home to pay for residential care but the electorate clearly decides using it to pay for personal care was a step too far at the last general election and we should respect that decision. A majority in polls do support increasing National Insurance to pay for extra social care costs and more money for the NHS though and that is where most of the extra money should be raised, though over 65s still in any form of employment should still be liable for NI payments
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are pohave too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care ohe individual burden.
It’s not either or.
I think that people who have savings and assets for rainy days should use them when those rainy days come.
Too many such people, as the outrage last year showed, seem to think that others should pay so that their own assets can remain untouched and pass down to their children. That seems to me to be both selfish and inequitable.
Like you, I found those who thought that they had a right to hand down an extremely valuable family home to their children and that society as a whole should pick up the costs of their care to allow this both greedy and more than slightly weird. It is very unfortunate that what was basically a sound idea was handled so ineptly. We now face more of social care being met from general taxation once again accentuating inter-generational unfairness.
You already have to use the family home to pay for residential care but the electorate clearly decides using it to pay for personal care was a step too far at the last general election and we should respect that decision
The family home is **already** used to pay for personal care if you have dementia.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care or not. You are suggesting a system that bankrupts people who are already in difficult personal circumstances and leaves the lucky ones with their wealth.
A wealth tax pools that risk and reduces the individual burden.
If money is raised via a wealth tax, then the first call on that pot of money should be the young. We should reduce (or better still remove) tuition fees at universities.
Your proposal simply increases the already massive inter-generational unfairness. Still more tax money will be spent on a generation that have been remarkably blessed.
(To be clear, my mother died of dementia -- for which you have to fund your own care since at least the days of New Labour. We sold her house to pay for it. I didn’t receive any money when she died. I am happy with that.
Your proposal would have given me an additional inheritance windfall, which I don’t need.)
Very sorry to hear about your mother.
But I wonder if this 'intergenerational unfairness' trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use t praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care orividual burden.
If money is raised via a wealth tax, then the first call on that pot of money should be the young. We should reduce (or better still remove) tuition fees at universities.
Your proposal simply increases the already massive inter-generational unfairness. Still more tax money will be spent on a generation that have been remarkably blessed.
(To be clear, my mother died of dementia -- for which you have to fund your own care since at least the days of New Labour. We sold her house to pay for it. I didn’t receive any money when she died. I am happy with that.
Your proposal would have given me an additional inheritance windfall, which I don’t need.)
Very sorry to hear about your mother.
But I wonder if this 'intergenerational unfairness' trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
Plus ultimately it is the children of pensioners who will ultimately benefit from higher house prices through inheritance and helped by Osborne's IHT cut, the value of their home makes little real difference to pensioners unless they downsize and release some of the capital
In fact, the debate on pb.com shows the problems of fixing social care.
Everyone wants their elderly parents to be looked after at less cost than present, and they want their houses to be bigger without any property tax increases.
A lot of the costs of care homes are incurred meeting standards required by the regulatory authorities. These require quite high staff ratios, high levels of medical expertise and major investment in infrastructure. Many of these requirements are driven by earlier scandals of course but we treat too many retirement homes as if they were offering palliative care rather than a helping hand. By failing to differentiate the needs of the residents more we make it more expensive for everyone.
True. And rates for private customers cross-subsidise Council-funded places.
It is quite like the child care costs - they tried to reform things a few years ago by permitting lower staff ratios in line with some other countries, and there was a god-almighty rumpus, in this case from the producer lobby.
On the property tax levels, the UK has consistently had pretty much the highest property taxes in the world for the last half century. The only exception was around 1990 for a couple of years,
Will post an historical graph once I have tamed the OECD Property Tax Comparison Generator :-).
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are pohave too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
Perhaps people needing care and with large homes could use their homes to pay for their care.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
No, because it's largely random chance that determines whether you need social care ohe individual burden.
It’s not either or.
I think that people who have savings and assets for rainy days should use them when those rainy days come.
Too many such people, as the outrage last year showed, seem to think that others should pay so that their own assets can remain untouched and pass down to their children. That seems to me to be both selfish and inequitable.
Like you, I found those who thought that they had a right to hand down an extremely valuable family home to their children and that society as a whole should pick up the costs of their care to allow this both greedy and more than slightly weird. It is very unfortunate that what was basically a sound idea was handled so ineptly. We now face more of social care being met from general taxation once again accentuating inter-generational unfairness.
You already have to use the family home to pay for residential care but the electorate clearly decides using it to pay for personal care was a step too far at the last general election and we should respect that decision
The family home is **already** used to pay for personal care if you have dementia.
Not just in the USA, but also in continental Europe, property is advertised by floor area, while in Britain it is often ignored. Compared with other countries British houses are poky and on very small plots of land, so not attractive to downsizing, though council and inheritance taxes that are designed to favour under occupancy of bigger houses plays a part. Additionally there is the problem of baby boomers being the first consumerist generation. We simply have too much stuff to easily downsize.
That does not seem to be correct.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
Your proposal simply increases the already massive inter-generational unfairness. Still more tax money will be spent on a generation that have been remarkably blessed.
(To be clear, my mother died of dementia -- for which you have to fund your own care since at least the days of New Labour. We sold her house to pay for it. I didn’t receive any money when she died. I am happy with that.
Your proposal would have given me an additional inheritance windfall, which I don’t need.)
Very sorry to hear about your mother.
But I wonder if this 'intergenerational unfairness' trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
Yes - 25% of the population are being conned in to wasting 3 years on second rate qualifications which offer them no real differentiation or advantage in the workplace.
But I wonder if this 'intergenerational unfairness' trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
The numbers have gone up, but of course we have moved from no fees+maintenance grant to 9k per annum fees and no maintenance grant.
This has been the price to pay for the expansion (Blair’s Folly).
The price is to high.
We should reduce the numbers going to University to 20 per cent and reduce (or remove) the fees.
Perhaps, in an ideal world devoid of consequences; though of course if you're in the 20% that would lose out on a life/educational experience that you've grown to expect, then you'll punish any party that implements that.
I was in the final year of 1k/year. It was eminently affordable - I've nearly paid off my student loan after 10 years, during most of which I was setting up my own business and so on relatively low income.
How often have you met a cheerful farmer? It's either too wet, too dry, too cold or too hot.
And when Jezza forms the next government and implements his manifesto, do you think he'll take note of the wishes of the majority of the voters who voted against him. "We can't put forward a socialist programme, the Conservatives wouldn't want it."
Mr. Mortimer, a university friend of mine needlessly took out a student loan, then ploughed the money into an ISA, which had a higher interest rate than the loan. Smart cookie.
But I wonder if this 'intergenerational unfairness' trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
The numbers have gone up, but of course we have moved from no fees+maintenance grant to 9k per annum fees and no maintenance grant.
This has been the price to pay for the expansion (Blair’s Folly).
The price is to high.
We should reduce the numbers going to University to 20 per cent and reduce (or remove) the fees.
Perhaps, in an ideal world devoid of consequences; though of course if you're in the 20% that would lose out on a life/educational experience that you've grown to expect, then you'll punish any party that implements that.
I was in the final year of 1k/year. It was eminently affordable - I've nearly paid off my student loan after 10 years, during most of which I was setting up my own business and so on relatively low income.
If the Tories really believe that the best way of appealing to the young is to say “this intergenerational unfairness trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic”, then ....
Mr. Cwsc, on a similar note, if you listened to the media you'd think there's only the retired and the fresh out of university, with nobody in between.
Mr. P, piffle. The EU and Europe are not the same thing. This weird love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA
Not this crap again
If "love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA", Brexiteers would be proposing we leave FIFA and hold our own World Cup.
The government of the day is telling us that we are no longer citizens of Europe.
That is why people will not "get over it"
It is the government. It’s the people. They voted very clearly in a referendum to leave the EU. To no longer be citizens of a member state of the EU. That’s the thing about democracy. You might not like the results of democratic votes, but you can’t deny the authenticity of the referendum.
While I agree that we voted to leave, I don’t think you can call a 52:48 majority ‘clear’!
In a binary decision I think you can. Whether the result was by .1% or 10% result is the result. There’s no get out fallback, such as it might be a perverse result of an fptp election etc. It was clear what was being asked.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
It is certainly unnecessary. We have skewed our education system and allowed degree courses to be set up with little or know academic value and of precious little use to the students in their future careers.
OT. For those interested according to the Jewish groups meeting Corbyn yesterday one of the sticking points was his refusal to sign up to this. I have to say I'm not at all surprised. To agree to this sort of declaration is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
To accuse someone of having a greater loyalty to a foreign power (“Papusm” for example) absolutely makes them “other” and - in the case of Jews - would 100% by antisemitic
Similarly to implicitly deny the right of Israel to exist (by saying that it is intrinsically racist in the way that France or Germany is not) is very much anti-Semitic
I thought it had gone a bit quiet on the 'Dave the terrorist' front.
'Toronto van attack: Alek Minassian praised 'incel' killer
A van driver accused of killing 10 people in Toronto posted to Facebook minutes before the attack to praise killer Elliot Rodger and refer to the misogynistic "incel" Reddit group...
..It read: "The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!"
The term "incel" refers to a now-banned group on the message site Reddit, used by Rodger, where young men discussed their lack of sexual activity and attractiveness to women - often blaming women for the problem.'
OT. For those interested according to the Jewish groups meeting Corbyn yesterday one of the sticking points was his refusal to sign up to this. I have to say I'm not at all surprised. To agree to this sort of declaration is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
I take your point. The argument that Jews owe loyalty to each other or to Israel above their own nations is an anti-Semitic trope, but I have occasionally met Jews who have said that if they had to choose between Israel and the UK, (and they'd. Hope such a choice never arose) they'd choose Israel. One can argue that nation States are intrinsically racist, so including Israel in that. Israel is very much based on the liberal nationalist view that every people deserves its own State. Arguing that that the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist, but the existence of other nation States is not, is an anti-Semitic viewpoint, IMO.
"Was anyone suggesting at the time that Tebbit's test should be formally adopted by the Conservative party?"
Sorry, but I don't see your point. My point is that the Labour Party considered this racist. Why don't they consider the Jewish theme racist too and sign up to show that? is it because they are Jewish?
Are pupils expected to memorise MacBeth, Lord of the Flies and 15 assorted poems for English Lit these days with no text allowed in the exam ?! Pretty sure I was able to take my copy "Of Mice and Men" into the exam hall...
OT. For those interested according to the Jewish groups meeting Corbyn yesterday one of the sticking points was his refusal to sign up to this. I have to say I'm not at all surprised. To agree to this sort of declaration is the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
To accuse someone of having a greater loyalty to a foreign power (“Papusm” for example) absolutely makes them “other” and - in the case of Jews - would 100% by antisemitic
Similarly to implicitly deny the right of Israel to exist (by saying that it is intrinsically racist in the way that France or Germany is not) is very much anti-Semitic
Wouldn't most religious people say they owe some form of a higher loyalty to their religion rather than their country? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's etc.?
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
1 - I do not believe the claims in that blog.
His claim, which is based old data from about 1996 inserted into an RIBA report in the early 2000s, is that new houses in the UK are 76sqm. A more recent and more accurate figure is something like 93sqm, which is as-near-as-dammit the European average. Recent and exhaustive analysis was done by Savills here: http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/186866/188035-0
But of course all the media love "poor little oppressed Brits" narratives :-), even if the data is bunk.
One subtle point here is that Planning Permission is given by external dimensions, whilst walls are around 150-300mm thicker than they used to be due to Building Regs etc. You can easily lose 5-10% of what would have been internal space 30 years ago to thicker walls.
2 - On property taxes, the UK has pretty much the highest property taxes in the world, which run at about 4% of GDP. The page on the OECD website with the Property TAx archive is here: https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-on-property.htm
The biggies are Council Tax and now Stamp Duty, though the latter has clobbered parts of the housing market ... eg in London for people from aboard the Stamp Duty on a purchase can pay about 4 years rental of the same property at the high end.
"Was anyone suggesting at the time that Tebbit's test should be formally adopted by the Conservative party?"
Sorry, but I don't see your point. My point is that the Labour Party considered this racist. Why don't they consider the Jewish theme racist too and sign up to show that? is it because they are Jewish?
Just like the Conservative party disavowed the cricket test and disowned Tebbit? Oh, that's right, they made Norm a peer and right now they're having to clean up a mess due to them creating a hostile environment for immigrants.
"Was anyone suggesting at the time that Tebbit's test should be formally adopted by the Conservative party?"
Sorry, but I don't see your point. My point is that the Labour Party considered this racist. Why don't they consider the Jewish theme racist too and sign up to show that? is it because they are Jewish?
Just like the Conservative party disavowed the cricket test and disowned Tebbit? Oh, that's right, they made Norm a peer and right now they're having to clean up a mess due to them creating a hostile environment for immigrants.
It was Labour who first started creating that hostile environment. As they admitted last week.
Are pupils expected to memorise MacBeth, Lord of the Flies and 15 assorted poems for English Lit these days with no text allowed in the exam ?! Pretty sure I was able to take my copy "Of Mice and Men" into the exam hall...
Surely developing memory skills is an important life lesson. No-one is expected to learn all of those things off by heart - just a few key quotes that you can use by way of example.
Top 5 countries for wage growth all in Eastern Europe and the UK was one of the only EU nations not to impose transition controls on free movement from the new Eastern European accession countries in 2004?
Are pupils expected to memorise MacBeth, Lord of the Flies and 15 assorted poems for English Lit these days with no text allowed in the exam ?! Pretty sure I was able to take my copy "Of Mice and Men" into the exam hall...
I think my GCSE year (2003) was the last year that you could take your annotated copy of the text into the exam. I seem to remember my English teacher complaining that they were going to have to provide clean copies to all pupils in following years.
"Was anyone suggesting at the time that Tebbit's test should be formally adopted by the Conservative party?"
Sorry, but I don't see your point. My point is that the Labour Party considered this racist. Why don't they consider the Jewish theme racist too and sign up to show that? is it because they are Jewish?
Just like the Conservative party disavowed the cricket test and disowned Tebbit? Oh, that's right, they made Norm a peer and right now they're having to clean up a mess due to them creating a hostile environment for immigrants.
It was Labour who first started creating that hostile environment. As they admitted last week.
How marvellously ecumenical then that the Conservatives enthusiastically adopted and developed it. You can't keep a good policy down!
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
It is certainly unnecessary. We have skewed our education system and allowed degree courses to be set up with little or know academic value and of precious little use to the students in their future careers.
"little or know academic value" See what you mean ;-)
A nice bit of whataboutery. But Jezza has been kippered here.
He will talk the talk but he'll never walk the walk if it doesn't suit. You can insult the Tories all you want, but it doesn't absolve 'ol Bonehead.
BTW, I think signing up to Ed-Stones, codes of conduct or whatever is just meaningless frippery, but refusing to so in this situation is making a point.
Mr. Meeks, hasn't this been the case since the financial crisis? Our employment numbers held up better than expected, and better than elsewhere, at the cost of wages.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
It is certainly unnecessary. We have skewed our education system and allowed degree courses to be set up with little or know academic value and of precious little use to the students in their future careers.
"little or know academic value" See what you mean ;-)
Ah the joys of not paying enough attention. Very little any education system can do to improve my own proof-reading skills!
But I wonder if this 'intergenerational unfairness' trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?</p>
Well, er, yes. The fact that it's much harder to compete for a job without a degree, which requires starting your career 3 or 4 years later and incurring tens of thousands of pounds of debt *is* one way in which this generation has it worse.
Comments
But you have to do your own research. When buying a family home last year I nerdily compiled a spreadsheet on approximate price per square foot in various areas, based on samples of recent sales. My wife found it all very tedious.
"Jacob Rees-Mogg will 'flee the country' if Conservative Party abandons Brexit"
huffp.st/RRheKMG
For a town of c 23k people, Potters Bar has loads of them.
I remember the abuse for Nick Clegg when he suggested it.
Average house sizes in UK are smaller than in France & Germany, but comparable to Spain, the Netherlands and larger than Italy.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house
However, this discussion started by trying to find a source of money for social care. My point was property taxes in the UK are puny, and they need to be increased very substantially. They are puny even compared to low tax USA.
The smaller the country, the higher the population density, then the more space is at a premium. Under-occupancy of large houses should therefore be strongly penalised in the tax system.
County council care homes the council will pay residential fees of £640 a week for private homes offering the same level of care the council will pay £500 a week.
If you want to increase the level of public care homes, it’s going to cost more. That’s not more to increase capacity, it’s more just to do the same thing.
Maybe a political party might suggest this?
And all those people saying that property wealth tax should be used to pay for social care will be in favour and say what a good idea this is and praise the party proposing it, yes?
An amnesty would be a wonderful way of encouraging more illegal immigration, and a slap in the face to those who jumped through the hoops to come here legally. What's the point if you can just break the law, wait a while, and then be allowed to stay?
The trouble starts when politicians decide that they, not you, are going to edit your identity. They will decide what layers are allowed in your sense of yourself. Brexit has been instructive on this. Anyone who values their European identity has been told that any political or democratic expression of their Europeanism will no longer be permitted. Their personal stake in Europe will be removed.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2aad6cba-47e3-11e8-8db5-58268675bbb1
"Ferrari & Mercedes Double Points Finish, McLaren & Force India cars to be classified & Williams not to score a point"
Was tempted, until I realised I'd missed the McLaren name there. Far too many contingencies to back at just 6, particularly given what happened last year. Anyway, will consider some other things and have a think about them.
The idea on pb.com that “care home fees are mysteriously high” does seem curious, given that many are going bankrupt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43850046
In fact, the debate on pb.com shows the problems of fixing social care.
Everyone wants their elderly parents to be looked after at less cost than present, and they want their houses to be bigger without any property tax increases.
You are suggesting a system that bankrupts people who are already in difficult personal circumstances and leaves the lucky ones with their wealth.
A wealth tax pools that risk and reduces the individual burden.
Betting PostTennis: as ever, patchy than Patchy McPatchface, so do at your own risk.
Backed Paire to beat Busta in straight sets (2-0) in the Barcelona open at 4.5 (Ladbrokes, with boost). He has a 3-2 winning record, and of those, 2/3 were straight sets.
F1: worth considering Verstappen/Ricciardo to top FP1 at 11 (each way, fifth odds for top three), with small stakes. The other big teams tend to sandbag more, and Ricciardo has topped one of three FP1's so far this year, as well as Red Bull dominating the practice times in 2017.
As well as the loss of profits from FOBT, taxes are going to be increased on other forms of gambling to make up the shortfall in income to the Treasury.
It is curious though that so little attention is given to the area in marketing. I was looking at some new build near Dundee recently. They had a 5 bed which actually had a significantly (10%+) smaller area than one of their 4 beds. In a couple of the "bedrooms" any cat getting its morning swing was going to suffer multiple concussions. Surely if people did not want this nonsense builders wouldn't build it?
If "love of the EU is like a football fan having the horn for FIFA", Brexiteers would be proposing we leave FIFA and hold our own World Cup.
The government of the day is telling us that we are no longer citizens of Europe.
That is why people will not "get over it"
I think that people who have savings and assets for rainy days should use them when those rainy days come.
Too many such people, as the outrage last year showed, seem to think that others should pay so that their own assets can remain untouched and pass down to their children. That seems to me to be both selfish and inequitable.
Personally I would put £10bn towards eliminating/reducing economically damaging taxes (eg employer NICs), £15bn to deficit reduction and £15bn to social care (with additional social care funds from some sort of insurance / direct contribution)
Your proposal simply increases the already massive inter-generational unfairness. Still more tax money will be spent on a generation that have been remarkably blessed.
(To be clear, my mother died of dementia -- for which you have to fund your own care since at least the days of New Labour. We sold her house to pay for it. I didn’t receive any money when she died. I am happy with that.
Your proposal would have given me an additional inheritance windfall, which I don’t need.)
What has happened is the reverse of what happened when the Maastricht Treaty was enacted here and, as we have seen on this forum, some people did not “get over” having EU citizenship given to them. For the moment they are in the majority.
Labour flirted with a garden tax, and it was the one issue that hurt them in the final week. Possibly decisively.
Rule 101 of politics: You. Don’t. Touch. People’s. Houses.
This was quickly presented as evidence of austerity etc. For twelve years all reception and year six children are weighed as part of the national measuring programme across England. The figures can be broke down per county. They show overweight, obese, healthy weight and underweight. In my county we have an increase in overweight and obesity at reception. But on the levels of underweight it’s a completely flat line. From 2006 to now there’s no change, same for the England line.
So there’s no measurable change in those underweight either at a county level or a national level in primary school children, in fact in this county the rate is a bit lower than the country as a whole.
His anecdote might be real, but to extrapolate anything more from it creates a false narrative.
I suspect it’s the sort of job that will be rendered redundant or obsolete in 15 years time anyway due to AI or changing economies in Europe and here.
Rule 102: Don’t. Grumble. About. Shitty. Social. Care. Provision. When. You. Have. To. Look. After. Elderly. Parents
How many MPs have well over s million vote majority?
"....The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations, or to say the existence of Israel is intrinsically racist."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/12/antisemitism-definition-government-combat-hate-crime-jews-israel
Another day, another disaster for Labour over anti-semitism.
Will this start to impact on polling?
But I wonder if this 'intergenerational unfairness' trope is becoming a bit hyperbolic.
Is it unfair that >40% of young 'uns now go to Uni, vs <15% a couple of generations ago?
It is quite like the child care costs - they tried to reform things a few years ago by permitting lower staff ratios in line with some other countries, and there was a god-almighty rumpus, in this case from the producer lobby.
On the property tax levels, the UK has consistently had pretty much the highest property taxes in the world for the last half century. The only exception was around 1990 for a couple of years,
Will post an historical graph once I have tamed the OECD Property Tax Comparison Generator :-).
This has been the price to pay for the expansion (Blair’s Folly).
The price is to high.
We should reduce the numbers going to University to 20 per cent and reduce (or remove) the fees.
I was in the final year of 1k/year. It was eminently affordable - I've nearly paid off my student loan after 10 years, during most of which I was setting up my own business and so on relatively low income.
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16182288.Retiring_BNP_councillor_backs_Labour_candidate_in_Pendle_election/?ref=twtrec
Must be a guy with a wicked sense of humour.
And when Jezza forms the next government and implements his manifesto, do you think he'll take note of the wishes of the majority of the voters who voted against him. "We can't put forward a socialist programme, the Conservatives wouldn't want it."
.... Prime Minister Jeremy it is.
"Jonathan Goldstein of the Jewish Leadership Council said Mr Corbyn "engages in conversation until you ask him to do something".
Mr Goldstein told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "When you ask him to do something he has this habit of staring and just shrugging."
He said Mr Corbyn seemed reluctant to "call out" people he knows and did not want to "own the words" around the anti-Semitism claims.
Mr Goldstein said: "Leadership starts from the top and we are asking Mr Corbyn to take behavioural change and leadership seriously. "
Similarly to implicitly deny the right of Israel to exist (by saying that it is intrinsically racist in the way that France or Germany is not) is very much anti-Semitic
'Toronto van attack: Alek Minassian praised 'incel' killer
A van driver accused of killing 10 people in Toronto posted to Facebook minutes before the attack to praise killer Elliot Rodger and refer to the misogynistic "incel" Reddit group...
..It read: "The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!"
The term "incel" refers to a now-banned group on the message site Reddit, used by Rodger, where young men discussed their lack of sexual activity and attractiveness to women - often blaming women for the problem.'
https://tinyurl.com/y9xkby8z
"The guidance says it could be considered antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel or their religion than to their own nations."
Didn't the Labour Party say that Norman Tebbit's 'cricket test' was racist, as it was. Why now jib at this?
PS The point being that Labour is being hypocritical by not signing now. But was ever thus.
Edit: or a more exact analogy, that anyone subscribing to it should be given the boot?
"Was anyone suggesting at the time that Tebbit's test should be formally adopted by the Conservative party?"
Sorry, but I don't see your point. My point is that the Labour Party considered this racist. Why don't they consider the Jewish theme racist too and sign up to show that? is it because they are Jewish?
and Labour are asking us to put this guy in Downing Street???
Pretty sure I was able to take my copy "Of Mice and Men" into the exam hall...
https://twitter.com/JamesRDennison/status/989036928199774210
His claim, which is based old data from about 1996 inserted into an RIBA report in the early 2000s, is that new houses in the UK are 76sqm. A more recent and more accurate figure is something like 93sqm, which is as-near-as-dammit the European average. Recent and exhaustive analysis was done by Savills here:
http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/186866/188035-0
But of course all the media love "poor little oppressed Brits" narratives :-), even if the data is bunk.
One subtle point here is that Planning Permission is given by external dimensions, whilst walls are around 150-300mm thicker than they used to be due to Building Regs etc. You can easily lose 5-10% of what would have been internal space 30 years ago to thicker walls.
2 - On property taxes, the UK has pretty much the highest property taxes in the world, which run at about 4% of GDP. The page on the OECD website with the Property TAx archive is here:
https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-on-property.htm
Here is a long-run graph based on % of GDP extracted as property taxes
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/989059278127468544
The biggies are Council Tax and now Stamp Duty, though the latter has clobbered parts of the housing market ... eg in London for people from aboard the Stamp Duty on a purchase can pay about 4 years rental of the same property at the high end.
See what you mean ;-)
A nice bit of whataboutery. But Jezza has been kippered here.
He will talk the talk but he'll never walk the walk if it doesn't suit. You can insult the Tories all you want, but it doesn't absolve 'ol Bonehead.
BTW, I think signing up to Ed-Stones, codes of conduct or whatever is just meaningless frippery, but refusing to so in this situation is making a point.