I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
Is the G&V the old Missoni on George IV bridge? If so, that is lovely. Top cocktails too.
Yep that’s it. Some of the best Italian food in Edinburgh too.
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
How are employers remotely responsible for how many children an employee has?
Or the fact that an employee will only work 16 hours so they can maximise their benefits?
Is the taxpayer? The same argument - if it has any validity - should apply in both cases.
And tax credits are not only paid to those with children. Working Tax credits are paid to anyone over 25 with or without kids who is in employment and who has an income below a certain level.
I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.
Also lovely. Edinburgh does have some smashing hotels. Out of season they’re also incredibly cheap. January-March and September-December a 5 star room rarely costs me more than £100 a night.
That’s a nice tip. Might take a trip in the autumn. £100 gets you an utter shithole in central London.
I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.
Also lovely. Edinburgh does have some smashing hotels. Out of season they’re also incredibly cheap. January-March and September-December a 5 star room rarely costs me more than £100 a night.
That’s a nice tip. Might take a trip in the autumn. £100 gets you an utter shithole in central London.
I agree. Just avoid the festival. That’s when these places make their profit for the year.
I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.
Also lovely. Edinburgh does have some smashing hotels. Out of season they’re also incredibly cheap. January-March and September-December a 5 star room rarely costs me more than £100 a night.
£100 gets you an utter shithole in central London.
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
One could increase the minimum wage whilst at the same time proportionally reducing Tax credits. It would have to be done very slowly because otherwise there are bound to be all sorts of horrible anomalies that need to be worked through the system but the basic principle that the employer should not be subsidised by the state into paying lower wages seems a sound one to me.
How is the employer subsidised?
Tax credits are maximised by people who have lots of children and refuse to work more than 16 hours - how does the employer benefit from that?
Wrong. As I already explained working tax credits are paid to anyone working a minimum number of hours and getting paid less than a certain income.
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
How are employers remotely responsible for how many children an employee has?
Or the fact that an employee will only work 16 hours so they can maximise their benefits?
Is the taxpayer? The same argument - if it has any validity - should apply in both cases.
And tax credits are not only paid to those with children. Working Tax credits are paid to anyone over 25 with or without kids who is in employment and who has an income below a certain level.
Yes the taxpayer is responsible, because the government that represents the taxpayer sets the rules and the beneficiaries (the people who receive the money, not the employers) play the system to maximise their benefits.
Again Working Tax Credits are payable (I believe) to those working only 16 hours. How is an employer responsible for the taxpayer via its elected government choosing to subsidise people who want to only work part time?
It also challenges us on a cultural level. Most people, snip one that's going to be easy to
How sad it would be if young people gave up enjoying themselves and focused on providing nursing care for themselves in their 80s and 90s! What a dull and dismal life.
They should have an exit strategy (high speed powerboat racing is a good one, or a heavy morphine habit) but they don't need to think about that until much later.
The government could give people the choice: either put money aside for social care in your 80s and 90s
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
One could increase the minimum wage whilst at the same time proportionally reducing Tax credits. It would have to be done very slowly because otherwise there are bound to be all sorts of horrible anomalies that need to be worked through the system but the basic principle that the employer should not be subsidised by the state into paying lower wages seems a sound one to me.
How is the employer subsidised?
Tax credits are maximised by people who have lots of children and refuse to work more than 16 hours - how does the employer benefit from that?
I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
Is the G&V the old Missoni on George IV bridge? If so, that is lovely. Top cocktails too.
Yep that’s it. Some of the best Italian food in Edinburgh too.
I remember being irked that the big hotel on George Square (think the name has changed recently) had overbooked, and so had to take another taxi to the replacement. When I arrived at the newly opened Missoni I stoppedbeing irked.
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
One could increase the minimum wage whilst at the same time proportionally reducing Tax credits. It would have to be done very slowly because otherwise there are bound to be all sorts of horrible anomalies that need to be worked through the system but the basic principle that the employer should not be subsidised by the state into paying lower wages seems a sound one to me.
How is the employer subsidised?
Tax credits are maximised by people who have lots of children and refuse to work more than 16 hours - how does the employer benefit from that?
Wrong. As I already explained working tax credits are paid to anyone working a minimum number of hours and getting paid less than a certain income.
That minimum number of hours being I believe 16. Do you think people who refuse to work full time are the employers responsibility? The employer is paying for all work done, the employee isn't working full time - and the taxpayer via the government has opted to choose to subsidise part time work. It was deliberate policy to make work more "family friendly" so don't blame the employer when the taxpayers government chose to do it.
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
How are employers remotely responsible for how many children an employee has?
Or the fact that an employee will only work 16 hours so they can maximise their benefits?
Is the taxpayer? The same argument - if it has any validity - should apply in both cases.
And tax credits are not only paid to those with children. Working Tax credits are paid to anyone over 25 with or without kids who is in employment and who has an income below a certain level.
Yes the taxpayer is responsible, because the government that represents the taxpayer sets the rules and the beneficiaries (the people who receive the money, not the employers) play the system to maximise their benefits.
Again Working Tax Credits are payable (I believe) to those working only 16 hours. How is an employer responsible for the taxpayer via its elected government choosing to subsidise people who want to only work part time?
Not true. If you are over 25 and have no kids you must work at least 30 hours a week to qualify for WTC.
I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
Is the G&V the old Missoni on George IV bridge? If so, that is lovely. Top cocktails too.
Yep that’s it. Some of the best Italian food in Edinburgh too.
Oh thanks, that is really good to know. I find Edinburgh a tricky place for really top notch food.
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
How are employers remotely responsible for how many children an employee has?
Or the fact that an employee will only work 16 hours so they can maximise their benefits?
Is the taxpayer? The same argument - if it has any validity - should apply in both cases.
And tax credits are not only paid to those with children. Working Tax credits are paid to anyone over 25 with or without kids who is in employment and who has an income below a certain level.
Yes the taxpayer is responsible, because the government that represents the taxpayer sets the rules and the beneficiaries (the people who receive the money, not the employers) play the system to maximise their benefits.
Again Working Tax Credits are payable (I believe) to those working only 16 hours. How is an employer responsible for the taxpayer via its elected government choosing to subsidise people who want to only work part time?
Not true. If you are over 25 and have no kids you must work at least 30 hours a week to qualify for WTC.
30 still isn't full time IMO.
And how much is spent on WTC for those without kids vs Child Tax Credits?
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
How are employers remotely responsible for how many children an employee has?
Or the fact that an employee will only work 16 hours so they can maximise their benefits?
Is the taxpayer? The same argument - if it has any validity - should apply in both cases.
And tax credits are not only paid to those with children. Working Tax credits are paid to anyone over 25 with or without kids who is in employment and who has an income below a certain level.
Yes the taxpayer is responsible, because the government that represents the taxpayer sets the rules and the beneficiaries (the people who receive the money, not the employers) play the system to maximise their benefits.
Again Working Tax Credits are payable (I believe) to those working only 16 hours. How is an employer responsible for the taxpayer via its elected government choosing to subsidise people who want to only work part time?
Not true. If you are over 25 and have no kids you must work at least 30 hours a week to qualify for WTC.
30 still isn't full time IMO.
And how much is spent on WTC for those without kids vs Child Tax Credits?
I'd imagine the kiddy credits utterly swamp the WTCs.
I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.
Also lovely. Edinburgh does have some smashing hotels. Out of season they’re also incredibly cheap. January-March and September-December a 5 star room rarely costs me more than £100 a night.
That’s a nice tip. Might take a trip in the autumn. £100 gets you an utter shithole in central London.
Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, is good enough, at that price.
Its a legal requirement to do so. Refusing to offer flexible working hours where possible or discriminating against people with children etc is against the law.
I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.
Also lovely. Edinburgh does have some smashing hotels. Out of season they’re also incredibly cheap. January-March and September-December a 5 star room rarely costs me more than £100 a night.
That’s a nice tip. Might take a trip in the autumn. £100 gets you an utter shithole in central London.
London generally costs at least twice as much as the rest of the country. Strangely, the exception, in the main, is Saturday nights - which can be quite cheap in Town.
Its a legal requirement to do so. Refusing to offer flexible working hours where possible or discriminating against people with children etc is against the law.
No. You are conflating the right to request flrexible working with part time hours.
If you advertise a full time position then you can insist the candidate works full time.
They can request home working after 24 months in the job but that is nothing to do with the hours.
I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
Is the G&V the old Missoni on George IV bridge? If so, that is lovely. Top cocktails too.
Yep that’s it. Some of the best Italian food in Edinburgh too.
Oh thanks, that is really good to know. I find Edinburgh a tricky place for really top notch food.
Ondine is good if you like fish. Best value saturday lunchtime meal for ages was Michael Neave on old fishmarket close
Assume the 1p also has to be matched by employers.
Would raise a few bil, not massive amounts.
Employers NI is already more than 1% above employees.
Yes. But this story is about adding an increment of 1 percentage point. My assumption was it would also require a similar increment on employers.
Wouldn’t raise much even with that.
Cutting tax credit and encouraging employers to make that up with wage increases would be far better than taxing more.
Tax credits are subsidising cheapskate employers. Trouble is, now we are in the system it’s hard to get out of it.
One could increase the minimum wage whilst at the same time proportionally reducing Tax credits. It would have to be done very slowly because otherwise there are bound to be all sorts of horrible anomalies that need to be worked through the system but the basic principle that the employer should not be subsidised by the state into paying lower wages seems a sound one to me.
How is the employer subsidised?
Tax credits are maximised by people who have lots of children and refuse to work more than 16 hours - how does the employer benefit from that?
Wrong. As I already explained working tax credits are paid to anyone working a minimum number of hours and getting paid less than a certain income.
That minimum number of hours being I believe 16. Do you think people who refuse to work full time are the employers responsibility? The employer is paying for all work done, the employee isn't working full time - and the taxpayer via the government has opted to choose to subsidise part time work. It was deliberate policy to make work more "family friendly" so don't blame the employer when the taxpayers government chose to do it.
How many hours one works is a red herring since the minimum wage is not calculated as an overall take home pay but as an hourly rate. Work out what should be considered an acceptable minimum wage for someone working full time - 40 hours a week - and then divide that by the number of hours to get what should be an acceptable hourly minimum wage. Any employer paying less than that would be breaking the law.
I like the Bonham in Edinburgh. I was there at the weekend.
Also lovely. Edinburgh does have some smashing hotels. Out of season they’re also incredibly cheap. January-March and September-December a 5 star room rarely costs me more than £100 a night.
That’s a nice tip. Might take a trip in the autumn. £100 gets you an utter shithole in central London.
London generally costs at least twice as much as the rest of the country. Strangely, the exception, in the main, is Saturday nights - which can be quite cheap in Town.
So I hear. I live here so have no call for it, but interesting to compare. Just looked up the Balmoral and the Bonham - both look great.
Its a legal requirement to do so. Refusing to offer flexible working hours where possible or discriminating against people with children etc is against the law.
No. You are conflating the right to request flrexible working with part time hours.
If you advertise a full time position then you can insist the candidate works full time.
They can request home working after 24 months in the job but that is nothing to do with the hours.
Job Sharing (where two employees work part time) is specifically mentioned on that link as something that can be requested and an Employment Tribunal can find you've broken the law if you refuse it out of hand. Job Sharing is even mentioned before working from home in that link so not sure how you missed it.
You do realise many businesses operate on a Part Time basis for a reason, but very few if any businesses deliberately want to cap their employees hours at 16. That is the employees request and it is done so because of the rules the government has set. The government is solely responsible for that and they should fix it so that there is no mammoth disincentive to work past 16 hours.
I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
Is the G&V the old Missoni on George IV bridge? If so, that is lovely. Top cocktails too.
Yep that’s it. Some of the best Italian food in Edinburgh too.
Oh thanks, that is really good to know. I find Edinburgh a tricky place for really top notch food.
Ondine is good if you like fish. Best value saturday lunchtime meal for ages was Michael Neave on old fishmarket close
I would probably say the G&V myself. Although I always stay at serviced apartments at what used to be called the Knight Residence. Hotel rooms are soulless on your own. An apartment to move around in is much nicer.
Is the G&V the old Missoni on George IV bridge? If so, that is lovely. Top cocktails too.
Yep that’s it. Some of the best Italian food in Edinburgh too.
Oh thanks, that is really good to know. I find Edinburgh a tricky place for really top notch food.
Ondine is good if you like fish. Best value saturday lunchtime meal for ages was Michael Neave on old fishmarket close
Thanks.
The Timberyard was very good - but a bit too fussy for my liking.
Incidentally as well as Job Sharing, Part Time work is also something that can be legally requested under Flexible Working.
The only reasons to reject Flexible Working are the following:
Reasons for rejecting
Employers can reject an application for any of the following reasons:
extra costs that will damage the business the work can’t be reorganised among other staff people can’t be recruited to do the work flexible working will affect quality and performance the business won’t be able to meet customer demand there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times the business is planning changes to the workforce
Oddly enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay tax credits isn't a reason for rejecting a request. If that was given as the reason I'm fairly confident an Employment Tribunal would rule that decision illegal.
Its a legal requirement to do so. Refusing to offer flexible working hours where possible or discriminating against people with children etc is against the law.
No. You are conflating the right to request flrexible working with part time hours.
If you advertise a full time position then you can insist the candidate works full time.
They can request home working after 24 months in the job but that is nothing to do with the hours.
Job Sharing (where two employees work part time) is specifically mentioned on that link as something that can be requested and an Employment Tribunal can find you've broken the law if you refuse it out of hand. Job Sharing is even mentioned before working from home in that link so not sure how you missed it.
You do realise many businesses operate on a Part Time basis for a reason, but very few if any businesses deliberately want to cap their employees hours at 16. That is the employees request and it is done so because of the rules the government has set. The government is solely responsible for that and they should fix it so that there is no mammoth disincentive to work past 16 hours.
Refusing a job share is pretty straightforward if the employer is sensible (client relationships, poor standard of sharer etc etc etc). It’s hard to refuse home working in many jobs - that is really the point of the legislation, so more people can work at home (which helps reduces pressure on roads/rail).
I do agree with you about 16 hours. It’s a stupid cliff edge.
Incidentally as well as Job Sharing, Part Time work is also something that can be legally requested under Flexible Working.
The only reasons to reject Flexible Working are the following:
Reasons for rejecting
Employers can reject an application for any of the following reasons:
extra costs that will damage the business the work can’t be reorganised among other staff people can’t be recruited to do the work flexible working will affect quality and performance the business won’t be able to meet customer demand there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times the business is planning changes to the workforce
Oddly enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay tax credits isn't a reason for rejecting a request. If that was given as the reason I'm fairly confident an Employment Tribunal would rule that decision illegal.
True enough!
In reality though any employer with half a brain can duck the part time and job share one in most cases. The legislation is really there to support home working and, to a lesser degree, compressed hours.
Its a legal requirement to do so. Refusing to offer flexible working hours where possible or discriminating against people with children etc is against the law.
No. You are conflating the right to request flrexible working with part time hours.
If you advertise a full time position then you can insist the candidate works full time.
They can request home working after 24 months in the job but that is nothing to do with the hours.
Job Sharing (where two employees work part time) is specifically mentioned on that link as something that can be requested and an Employment Tribunal can find you've broken the law if you refuse it out of hand. Job Sharing is even mentioned before working from home in that link so not sure how you missed it.
You do realise many businesses operate on a Part Time basis for a reason, but very few if any businesses deliberately want to cap their employees hours at 16. That is the employees request and it is done so because of the rules the government has set. The government is solely responsible for that and they should fix it so that there is no mammoth disincentive to work past 16 hours.
Refusing a job share is pretty straightforward if the employer is sensible (client relationships, poor standard of sharer etc etc etc). It’s hard to refuse home working in many jobs - that is really the point of the legislation, so more people can work at home (which helps reduces pressure on roads/rail).
I do agree with you about 16 hours. It’s a stupid cliff edge.
My other half works from home. As you point out (Where it is possible) it saves congestion on the roads/rail as well as being more economical obviously for the worker with no commute in terms of overall travel.
My friend also recommended GTA for my eight-year-old.
I think these guys must live in an alternative universe.
The original GTA probably would now be fine for an 8 year old so long as the parents consider they are able to hear vulgar language without repeating it - it's less serious tone and simplistic top down graphics mean there would be nothing particularly brutal about it.
But frankly there are any number of games and movies which are explicitly aimed at children (or all ages) which are essentially just as violent, implicitly, as GTA, so no need to go full GA with the kids generally!
How many hours one works is a red herring since the minimum wage is not calculated as an overall take home pay but as an hourly rate. Work out what should be considered an acceptable minimum wage for someone working full time - 40 hours a week - and then divide that by the number of hours to get what should be an acceptable hourly minimum wage. Any employer paying less than that would be breaking the law.
I would completely agree on the additional requirement that if that is the minimum that an employee needs then it should be untaxed and that includes Employers NI as well as Employees NI and Income Tax. If its getting taxed then the government has decided that's above the minimum already.
Today for someone over 25 earning minimum wage on 40 hours a week the government takes off roughly £3000 in taxation. Why is the government taking away £3000 in taxation then saying that they're underpaid?
What we need is a complete reform of the tax system. Obviously I am in favour of a low flat rate tax because of my political views but putting that to one side, whether one agrees with a low tax system or a high tax system I think everyone can agree that the current system for tax and NI is just ridiculous.
We should look at merging Income tax, NI and any other sorts of personal taxes on unearned income and say that everyone whose earnings are in the same band should pay the same amount of overall tax whether they are employed, self employed or retired. To end the horrible idea of double taxation in inheritance, we should stop taxing the estate and tax the recipient on the same basis as any other income. So if your estate is left to one person they might end up paying quite a large amount of tax but if you have 5 kids and the estate is split amongst them then tax paid is based on their individual circumstances.
As I say personally I would like to see such a system tied to a much smaller state but that is immaterial in this particular argument. What we really need at the moment is transparency and a much simplified tax system.
Good post. I agree with all of it, although I suspect we would differ on the level of the rate. The system is so complex that hardly anyone not professionally involved really understands it. It encourages govts of both kinds to be dishonest (we are raising/cutting NI, but not taxes) and all manner of accounting dodges. Set the rate. Then transparently argue as to why it needs to be raised/lowered. As an economy, we could probably survive with many fewer accountants. They could put their undoubted cunning and intellect to more productive pursuits.
Its a legal requirement to do so. Refusing to offer flexible working hours where possible or discriminating against people with children etc is against the law.
No. You are conflating the right to request flrexible working with part time hours.
If you advertise a full time position then you can insist the candidate works full time.
They can request home working after 24 months in the job but that is nothing to do with the hours.
Job Sharing (where two employees work part time) is specifically mentioned on that link as something that can be requested and an Employment Tribunal can find you've broken the law if you refuse it out of hand. Job Sharing is even mentioned before working from home in that link so not sure how you missed it.
You do realise many businesses operate on a Part Time basis for a reason, but very few if any businesses deliberately want to cap their employees hours at 16. That is the employees request and it is done so because of the rules the government has set. The government is solely responsible for that and they should fix it so that there is no mammoth disincentive to work past 16 hours.
Refusing a job share is pretty straightforward if the employer is sensible (client relationships, poor standard of sharer etc etc etc). It’s hard to refuse home working in many jobs - that is really the point of the legislation, so more people can work at home (which helps reduces pressure on roads/rail).
I do agree with you about 16 hours. It’s a stupid cliff edge.
My other half works from home. As you point out (Where it is possible) it saves congestion on the roads/rail as well as being more economical obviously for the worker with no commute in terms of overall travel.
I work at home two out of five days (on average). (Although It doesn’t save me much money on travel because I lose the discount on a travel card, which are designed for people commuting every weekday). I usually end up working longer hours when I work at home, but when I take off the commuting time, shorter days.
And only a single poll showing a Labour lead (and that only 1%) over the last 29 polls......
Are we at "mid-term" yet?
Depends how long the government lasts, and it has moments when it looks quite shaky, despite Labour not pulling away in the polls - it might be past mid-term!
How many hours one works is a red herring since the minimum wage is not calculated as an overall take home pay but as an hourly rate. Work out what should be considered an acceptable minimum wage for someone working full time - 40 hours a week - and then divide that by the number of hours to get what should be an acceptable hourly minimum wage. Any employer paying less than that would be breaking the law.
I would completely agree on the additional requirement that if that is the minimum that an employee needs then it should be untaxed and that includes Employers NI as well as Employees NI and Income Tax. If its getting taxed then the government has decided that's above the minimum already.
Today for someone over 25 earning minimum wage on 40 hours a week the government takes off roughly £3000 in taxation. Why is the government taking away £3000 in taxation then saying that they're underpaid?
The other advantage of combining NI and income tax is that it would improve generational inequality.
My friend also recommended GTA for my eight-year-old.
I think these guys must live in an alternative universe.
The original GTA probably would now be fine for an 8 year old so long as the parents consider they are able to hear vulgar language without repeating it - it's less serious tone and simplistic top down graphics mean there would be nothing particularly brutal about it.
But frankly there are any number of games and movies which are explicitly aimed at children (or all ages) which are essentially just as violent, implicitly, as GTA, so no need to go full GA with the kids generally!
We loved the Uncharted series (which is Pegi 16 but I thought it was okay for him to play with an adult) and are desperate to find something else which we can both get so involved in. All the other action adventures are Pegi 18 - Hitman, Assassins Creed and - particularly - A Way Out all look superb but I’m not comfortable offering them to my son!
My friend also recommended GTA for my eight-year-old.
I think these guys must live in an alternative universe.
The original GTA probably would now be fine for an 8 year old so long as the parents consider they are able to hear vulgar language without repeating it - it's less serious tone and simplistic top down graphics mean there would be nothing particularly brutal about it.
But frankly there are any number of games and movies which are explicitly aimed at children (or all ages) which are essentially just as violent, implicitly, as GTA, so no need to go full GA with the kids generally!
We loved the Uncharted series (which is Pegi 16 but I thought it was okay for him to play with an adult) and are desperate to find something else which we can both get so involved in. All the other action adventures are Pegi 18 - Hitman, Assassins Creed and - particularly - A Way Out all look superb but I’m not comfortable offering them to my son!
The new Tomb Raiders are basically just Uncharted with Lara Croft, but admittedly the death animations can be a bit over the top brutal in them, so perhaps not a great idea.
My calculation of the Customs Union vote mathematics:
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers) Lib Dem: 12 SNP: 35 Plaid: 4 Alliance/Independent: 1 Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
How many hours one works is a red herring since the minimum wage is not calculated as an overall take home pay but as an hourly rate. Work out what should be considered an acceptable minimum wage for someone working full time - 40 hours a week - and then divide that by the number of hours to get what should be an acceptable hourly minimum wage. Any employer paying less than that would be breaking the law.
I would completely agree on the additional requirement that if that is the minimum that an employee needs then it should be untaxed and that includes Employers NI as well as Employees NI and Income Tax. If its getting taxed then the government has decided that's above the minimum already.
Today for someone over 25 earning minimum wage on 40 hours a week the government takes off roughly £3000 in taxation. Why is the government taking away £3000 in taxation then saying that they're underpaid?
Yep agree 100%. It is ludicrous that the Government gives out with one hand and takes back with the other. You are either earning enough to contribute or you are not.
In my view health and the closely related issue of social care need something like an additional £40-50 bn a year. I just don’t think it possible or moral to ask those working for a living to pay that whilst our elderly rich pass on their estates to the next generation largely untaxed. Sooner or later we will need to return to the dementia tax. I hope it’s sooner.
It also challenges us on a cultural level. Most people, when young, don't want to think about growing old or dying as we are encouraged to "live". Having a plan for when you are old is as important as having one when you are young.
Spending will always look more attractive than saving and we've been conditioned to believe happiness comes with the latest gadget, the most faraway place visited, the latest "thing". The notion all that is subsidiary to nursing care in your 80s and 90s isn't one that's going to be easy to embed.
How sad it would be if young people gave up enjoying themselves and focused on providing nursing care for themselves in their 80s and 90s! What a dull and dismal life.
They should have an exit strategy (high speed powerboat racing is a good one, or a heavy morphine habit) but they don't need to think about that until much later.
The government could give people the choice: either put money aside for social care in your 80s and 90s or hose it against the wall in your 20s and 30s but be euthanased on your 80th birthday.
Not much surprise, funding healthcare and welfare is largely what National Insurance was set up to do and I would expect the Government will largely use NI to fund both NHS and social care increases.
This is a completely different prospect to the 'dementia tax' which polls showed strong opposition to as in effect taking the key asset of homeowners if they needed personal care rather than NI which is made up of contributions paid from your wages and should return to its original principle as a proper insurance.
My calculation of the Customs Union vote mathematics:
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers) Lib Dem: 12 SNP: 35 Plaid: 4 Alliance/Independent: 1 Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
I agree and the Labour Brexiteers could be crucial, especially if there are more Tory Remainer rebels than expected (I would also add John Mann, Roger Godsiff, Kelvin Hopkins and Graham Stringer as possible Labour Brexiteers too as well as Hoey and Field).
My calculation of the Customs Union vote mathematics:
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers) Lib Dem: 12 SNP: 35 Plaid: 4 Alliance/Independent: 1 Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
There are only 257 Labour MPs in total at the moment. Removing Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers puts that down to 253.
I would assume that two of the MPs elected for Labour who have lost the whip - John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis - would be expected to vote with Labour but would Kelvin Hopkins, given he is such a prominent Labour Eurosceptic? Also can anyone rely on Jared O'Mara actually turning up to vote.
I would also assume that Charlie Elphick will vote with the Government. So I make that the 329 for - assuming Hopkins votes with against the Customs Union - and 308 against assuming O'Mara doesn't bother turning up.
My calculation of the Customs Union vote mathematics:
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers) Lib Dem: 12 SNP: 35 Plaid: 4 Alliance/Independent: 1 Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
Have you remembered to knock off Lewisham East from the labour total
My calculation of the Customs Union vote mathematics:
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers) Lib Dem: 12 SNP: 35 Plaid: 4 Alliance/Independent: 1 Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
There are only 257 Labour MPs in total at the moment. Removing Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers puts that down to 253.
I would assume that two of the MPs elected for Labour who have lost the whip - John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis - would be expected to vote with Labour but would Kelvin Hopkins, given he is such a prominent Labour Eurosceptic? Also can anyone rely on Jared O'Mara actually turning up to vote.
I would also assume that Charlie Elphick will vote with the Government. So I make that the 329 for - assuming Hopkins votes with against the Customs Union - and 308 against assuming O'Mara doesn't bother turning up.
Labour had 262 MPs returned in June 2017. Take off two Deputy Speakers - Omara - Lewisham East vacant - Kelvin hopkins - John Woodcock- gives a total of 256. Doubtless Woodcock will vote with Labour. By the time any 'ping pong' takes place Labour is likely to have filled the Lewisham E vacant seat.
Increase tax on workers but not layabouts or those over 65 ?
Fack off.
And if there's anyone who's so desperate to pay this extra NI then go down to your local hospital with your cheque book and make a donation.
I think most workers would rather pay 1p extra in National Insurance to fund the NHS and at home social care than face losing most of the inheritance windfall they are expecting when their parents pass away with a dementia or wealth tax on their parents home.
The government is likely to extend National Insurance to over 65s still in work anyway
My calculation of the Customs Union vote mathematics:
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers) Lib Dem: 12 SNP: 35 Plaid: 4 Alliance/Independent: 1 Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
There are only 257 Labour MPs in total at the moment. Removing Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers puts that down to 253.
I would assume that two of the MPs elected for Labour who have lost the whip - John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis - would be expected to vote with Labour but would Kelvin Hopkins, given he is such a prominent Labour Eurosceptic? Also can anyone rely on Jared O'Mara actually turning up to vote.
I would also assume that Charlie Elphick will vote with the Government. So I make that the 329 for - assuming Hopkins votes with against the Customs Union - and 308 against assuming O'Mara doesn't bother turning up.
Labour had 262 MPs returned in June 2017. Take off two Deputy Speakers - Omara - Lewisham East vacant - Kelvin hopkins - John Woodcock- gives a total of 256. Doubtless Woodcock will vote with Labour. By the time any 'ping pong' takes place Labour is likely to have filled the Lewisham E vacant seat.
I am using the HoC own website with the current numbers
Conservative 316 Labour 257 Scottish National Party 35 Liberal Democrat 12 Democratic Unionist Party 10 Sinn Féin 7 Independent 6 Plaid Cymru 4 Green Party 1 Speaker 1 Vacant 1
Take off the 2 deputy speakers, Hopkins, Hoey and Field gets you down to 252. If Omara doesn't turn up that is 251 but assume the two other suspended MPs - Woodcock and Lewis - vote with Labour that is 253. 35 SNP, 12 Lib Dems, 4 PC, 1 Green and Harmon make another 53 so that is 306 in total assuming no other Labour Brexiteers vote against the CU.
The Tories have 317 assuming Elphick votes with them plus 10 DUP and (in this example) 3 Labour. That is 330 and knock 1 off for the deputy speaker.
So 329 vs 306.
12 rebels needed on the Tory benches. More if any of the other Labour folk vote against the CU.
My calculation of the Customs Union vote mathematics:
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers) Lib Dem: 12 SNP: 35 Plaid: 4 Alliance/Independent: 1 Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
There are only 257 Labour MPs in total at the moment. Removing Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers puts that down to 253.
I would assume that two of the MPs elected for Labour who have lost the whip - John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis - would be expected to vote with Labour but would Kelvin Hopkins, given he is such a prominent Labour Eurosceptic? Also can anyone rely on Jared O'Mara actually turning up to vote.
I would also assume that Charlie Elphick will vote with the Government. So I make that the 329 for - assuming Hopkins votes with against the Customs Union - and 308 against assuming O'Mara doesn't bother turning up.
Labour had 262 MPs returned in June 2017. Take off two Deputy Speakers - Omara - Lewisham East vacant - Kelvin hopkins - John Woodcock- gives a total of 256. Doubtless Woodcock will vote with Labour. By the time any 'ping pong' takes place Labour is likely to have filled the Lewisham E vacant seat.
I am using the HoC own website with the current numbers
Conservative 316 Labour 257 Scottish National Party 35 Liberal Democrat 12 Democratic Unionist Party 10 Sinn Féin 7 Independent 6 Plaid Cymru 4 Green Party 1 Speaker 1 Vacant 1
Take off the 2 deputy speakers, Hopkins, Hoey and Field gets you down to 252. If Omara doesn't turn up that is 251 but assume the two other suspended MPs - Woodcock and Lewis - vote with Labour that is 253. 35 SNP, 12 Lib Dems, 4 PC, 1 Green and Harmon make another 53 so that is 306 in total assuming no other Labour Brexiteers vote against the CU.
The Tories have 317 assuming Elphick votes with them plus 10 DUP and (in this example) 3 Labour. That is 330 and knock 1 off for the deputy speaker.
So 329 vs 306.
12 rebels needed on the Tory benches. More if any of the other Labour folk vote against the CU.
I had forgotten about Ivan Lewis - but 635 MPs implies 15 MPs would not vote. In addition to 7 SF we have the Speaker and 3 Deputies.Also I vacant but that still leaves 338. Who knows whether O'Mara will vote?
Increase tax on workers but not layabouts or those over 65 ?
Fack off.
And if there's anyone who's so desperate to pay this extra NI then go down to your local hospital with your cheque book and make a donation.
Well said.
One pence on NI won't solve the problem of our ageing population and the impending social care disaster we are facing and frankly why should average earners who rent pay more tax so someone who owns a house worth £5m can leave it to their 65 year old kids and get free social care.
And that's of course assuming you believe that this policy will survive 40 years and will therefore fund your social care needs if you are aged 35 now. Will the government stick to its promise or the promise of previous parliaments? It hasn't on pensions!
Increase tax on workers but not layabouts or those over 65 ?
Fack off.
And if there's anyone who's so desperate to pay this extra NI then go down to your local hospital with your cheque book and make a donation.
Well said.
One pence on NI won't solve the problem of our ageing population and the impending social care disaster we are facing and frankly why should average earners who rent pay more tax so someone who owns a house worth £5m can leave it to their 65 year old kids and get free social care.
And that's of course assuming you believe that this policy will survive 40 years and will therefore fund your social care needs if you are aged 35 now. Will the government stick to its promise or the promise of previous parliaments? It hasn't on pensions!
Sorry I don't buy it.
The amount of money spent on care for the elderly, pensions and health care is growing about 2.5x quicker than the economy as a whole. The proportion of people's pay checks going out to look after the old will continue to rise.
At some point the young will either leave for somewhere with healthier demographics, or there will be a revolt. (Or probably a bit of both.)
Comments
And tax credits are not only paid to those with children. Working Tax credits are paid to anyone over 25 with or without kids who is in employment and who has an income below a certain level.
https://twitter.com/lurie_john/status/1004112744805797888
Again Working Tax Credits are payable (I believe) to those working only 16 hours. How is an employer responsible for the taxpayer via its elected government choosing to subsidise people who want to only work part time?
You do realise that they hire them voluntarily?
And how much is spent on WTC for those without kids vs Child Tax Credits?
We should all hope one day to get into the Travelodge.
Its a legal requirement to do so. Refusing to offer flexible working hours where possible or discriminating against people with children etc is against the law.
Robert suggested Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.
If you advertise a full time position then you can insist the candidate works full time.
They can request home working after 24 months in the job but that is nothing to do with the hours.
You do realise many businesses operate on a Part Time basis for a reason, but very few if any businesses deliberately want to cap their employees hours at 16. That is the employees request and it is done so because of the rules the government has set. The government is solely responsible for that and they should fix it so that there is no mammoth disincentive to work past 16 hours.
A place that is opulent and camper than Blacks of Greenock , Prestonfield House.
The Timberyard was very good - but a bit too fussy for my liking.
The only reasons to reject Flexible Working are the following:
Reasons for rejecting
Employers can reject an application for any of the following reasons:
extra costs that will damage the business
the work can’t be reorganised among other staff
people can’t be recruited to do the work
flexible working will affect quality and performance
the business won’t be able to meet customer demand
there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times
the business is planning changes to the workforce
Oddly enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay tax credits isn't a reason for rejecting a request. If that was given as the reason I'm fairly confident an Employment Tribunal would rule that decision illegal.
I do agree with you about 16 hours. It’s a stupid cliff edge.
2) What a terrible suggestion - as great a game as it is, as a gift you should have gotten something current gen at least.
True enough!
In reality though any employer with half a brain can duck the part time and job share one in most cases. The legislation is really there to support home working and, to a lesser degree, compressed hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
My friend also recommended GTA for my eight-year-old.
I think these guys must live in an alternative universe.
But frankly there are any number of games and movies which are explicitly aimed at children (or all ages) which are essentially just as violent, implicitly, as GTA, so no need to go full GA with the kids generally!
Today for someone over 25 earning minimum wage on 40 hours a week the government takes off roughly £3000 in taxation. Why is the government taking away £3000 in taxation then saying that they're underpaid?
Are we at "mid-term" yet?
It encourages govts of both kinds to be dishonest (we are raising/cutting NI, but not taxes) and all manner of accounting dodges.
Set the rate. Then transparently argue as to why it needs to be raised/lowered.
As an economy, we could probably survive with many fewer accountants. They could put their undoubted cunning and intellect to more productive pursuits.
Night all.
For the amendment (best case scenario)
Labour: 257 (all MPs except Hoey, Field and the 2 deputy speakers)
Lib Dem: 12
SNP: 35
Plaid: 4
Alliance/Independent: 1
Green: 1
Total: 310
There are 317 Con MPs. Add 10 DUP, 3 Labour Brexiteers, subtract 1 for deputy speaker gives 329
So the Conservatives can afford up to 10 rebels. Clarke and Soubry will certainly be two of these, but are there 8 more? I think the Government will just squeak it.
Increase tax on workers but not layabouts or those over 65 ?
Fack off.
And if there's anyone who's so desperate to pay this extra NI then go down to your local hospital with your cheque book and make a donation.
This is a completely different prospect to the 'dementia tax' which polls showed strong opposition to as in effect taking the key asset of homeowners if they needed personal care rather than NI which is made up of contributions paid from your wages and should return to its original principle as a proper insurance.
I would assume that two of the MPs elected for Labour who have lost the whip - John Woodcock and Ivan Lewis - would be expected to vote with Labour but would Kelvin Hopkins, given he is such a prominent Labour Eurosceptic? Also can anyone rely on Jared O'Mara actually turning up to vote.
I would also assume that Charlie Elphick will vote with the Government. So I make that the 329 for - assuming Hopkins votes with against the Customs Union - and 308 against assuming O'Mara doesn't bother turning up.
And the governing party has a bigger lead now than it did at the last election.
Its complicated and confusing.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1004009337877090304
The government is likely to extend National Insurance to over 65s still in work anyway
Conservative
316
Labour
257
Scottish National Party
35
Liberal Democrat
12
Democratic Unionist Party
10
Sinn Féin
7
Independent
6
Plaid Cymru
4
Green Party
1
Speaker
1
Vacant
1
Take off the 2 deputy speakers, Hopkins, Hoey and Field gets you down to 252. If Omara doesn't turn up that is 251 but assume the two other suspended MPs - Woodcock and Lewis - vote with Labour that is 253. 35 SNP, 12 Lib Dems, 4 PC, 1 Green and Harmon make another 53 so that is 306 in total assuming no other Labour Brexiteers vote against the CU.
The Tories have 317 assuming Elphick votes with them plus 10 DUP and (in this example) 3 Labour. That is 330 and knock 1 off for the deputy speaker.
So 329 vs 306.
12 rebels needed on the Tory benches. More if any of the other Labour folk vote against the CU.
One pence on NI won't solve the problem of our ageing population and the impending social care disaster we are facing and frankly why should average earners who rent pay more tax so someone who owns a house worth £5m can leave it to their 65 year old kids and get free social care.
And that's of course assuming you believe that this policy will survive 40 years and will therefore fund your social care needs if you are aged 35 now. Will the government stick to its promise or the promise of previous parliaments? It hasn't on pensions!
Sorry I don't buy it.
At some point the young will either leave for somewhere with healthier demographics, or there will be a revolt. (Or probably a bit of both.)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/05/us/elections/results-california-primary-elections.html
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125575094