Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov finds overall backing for nuclear power with UKIP vo

13

Comments

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited October 2013
    And previous nuclear plants or our current North Sea Oil and Gas industry does not? The UK has had to take the threat of a possible terrorist attack on installations in the North Sea very seriously for many years now, a very good reason to suspect they would be extremely capable to taking care of such security risks involving nuclear power.

    Pulpstar said:

    Plato said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    That is to me the most surprising poll in living memory; particularly the fact that even LDs are in favour by a clear majority.

    It would be riveting to see a comparable poll from just after Fukushima.

    The incredible ill-informed nonsense that came as a result of Fukushima just depressed me. We aren't in an earthquake zone and the chances of being hit by a tidal wave are vanishingly small - but the Germans went all ARGH!!!! and so ended up buying nuclear powered electricity from France instead... *scratches head*
    Terrorism is probably the biggest existential threat in this country to our nuclear. Btw Coal power stations are actually more harmful due to radioactivity than Nuclear ones (I think). Fun fact :).
    Nuclear power has a lot of.openings for terrorists, particularly denial of service. Since nuclear power is (justifiably) very paranoidly run, you wouldn't need much of a credible threat to get the whole thing shut down. A couple of big guns on a small boat off the Suffolk coast or something - you wouldn't even have to get close to a successful attack to get the media terrorising the populace on your behalf and the regulators turning out the lights to cover their arses.
  • tim said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    Thank you Labour!!! 62% actually..... you forgot NI.

    Pension contribution via salary sacrifice = no brainer... £1 in your pension costing you just 38p.

    unless got a monster mortgage to pay of course...

    That was the advice given by the finance guy, make pension AVCs, but I have a mortgage to reduce...

    I had already come to terms with losing 40% of my bonus to income tax, but to lose more than half of it is difficult to take. D:
    Did you not know this before you budgeted on how much to borrow?
    The lender in their affordability calculations will have needed to as post MMR they will have to be all over that in their decision to offer or not - mind you, I wouldn't bet on it with all of them!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,301

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,477
    tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This thread deserves some kind of award for the "dinner party from hell" post from Antifrank and DavidL's post on intercontinental delivery systems.

    As for house prices - I'd much rather my home was worth less and my children had a chance of buying somewhere to live in London if they want to, at least before I'm dead...... Houses are for living in - or they should be.

    That's what house price inflation does though transfers wealth from your children to you.
    If you bought a four bed house 15 years ago that's gone from £300k to £600k the three kids will be paying £200k instead of £100k for their first flats.
    Who is supposed to benefit?

    And that's before you get onto the macro economic effects of destroying mobility of labour, increased housing benefit and tying up wealth in a non productive sector
    I quite agree, which is why I get infuriated when people get so happy when house price inflation increases (witness all the newspaper property sections). Inflation is a bad not a good thing - unless you're trying to inflate away excessive debt, which seems to be current government and BoE policy.

    We seem to have the worst of all worlds: ludicrous house prices which screw over the young and, eventually, the old since there won't be anyone able to afford their houses when they want to downsize and savers who are being screwed over as governments use inflation to get them and the imprudent out of the debt holes they've got themselves into. Grr!!!
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    antifrank said:

    This thread reads like the dinner party from hell.

    Says the man who was openly pondering on here the other day whether to sell or let his second N1 property
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties.
    I doubt they'll be thankful for you mentioning it in a public forum as what you describe sounds like the type of practice IR35 was introduced to clamp down on.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    This thread reads like the dinner party from hell.

    Says the man who was openly pondering on here the other day whether to sell or let his second N1 property
    That's an outrageous accusation.

    It's in EC2.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,301
    tim said:

    Did you not know this before you budgeted on how much to borrow?

    Tbh, I can afford the mortgage with my regular income at BoE interest rates up to 2.5%, so it gives me three years (IMO) to reduce my outstanding loan by £30-40k on top of my regular repayments. It just makes overpayments irritating until I either earn more than £130k so the marginal withdrawal rate isn't so irritating, or until I begin a tax shelter scheme.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


  • Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    This thread reads like the dinner party from hell.

    Says the man who was openly pondering on here the other day whether to sell or let his second N1 property

    Good line though :-)

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    Cyclefree said:

    tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    This thread deserves some kind of award for the "dinner party from hell" post from Antifrank and DavidL's post on intercontinental delivery systems.

    As for house prices - I'd much rather my home was worth less and my children had a chance of buying somewhere to live in London if they want to, at least before I'm dead...... Houses are for living in - or they should be.

    That's what house price inflation does though transfers wealth from your children to you.
    If you bought a four bed house 15 years ago that's gone from £300k to £600k the three kids will be paying £200k instead of £100k for their first flats.
    Who is supposed to benefit?

    And that's before you get onto the macro economic effects of destroying mobility of labour, increased housing benefit and tying up wealth in a non productive sector
    I quite agree, which is why I get infuriated when people get so happy when house price inflation increases (witness all the newspaper property sections). Inflation is a bad not a good thing - unless you're trying to inflate away excessive debt, which seems to be current government and BoE policy.

    We seem to have the worst of all worlds: ludicrous house prices which screw over the young and, eventually, the old since there won't be anyone able to afford their houses when they want to downsize and savers who are being screwed over as governments use inflation to get them and the imprudent out of the debt holes they've got themselves into. Grr!!!
    'Twas always so. I remember a telly programme in the seventies where a mother was complaining that her young married son in Cambridgeshire could not afford to buy a house. I could not afford to buy until I was 36, partly due to an imprudent bachelorhood.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    antifrank said:

    This thread reads like the dinner party from hell.

    Says the man who was openly pondering on here the other day whether to sell or let his second N1 property
    That's an outrageous accusation.

    It's in EC2.
    :)

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,301
    edited October 2013

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.
    Someone here fought and won a case some years back, so I don't think it's going to be too difficult. Also, it wouldn't be one client or one premises.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The next time someone tells you the rich get richer and the poor get poorer innit tell them that the gap between rich and poor in Britain has grown narrower in recent years, and that wealth is more equally distributed here than in Germany, France and the Netherlands.

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/10/21/wealth-more-equal-in-uk-than-in-france-or-germany/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.
    Someone here fought and won a case some years back, so I don't think it's going to be too difficult. Also, it wouldn't be one client or one premises.
    Using your own equipment? Make sure any contract permits staff substitution too.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,301

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.
    Someone here fought and won a case some years back, so I don't think it's going to be too difficult. Also, it wouldn't be one client or one premises.
    Using your own equipment? Make sure any contract permits staff substitution too.

    The finance people here are pretty good at it all, I trust them to do it. They haven't failed so far, the original arrangement that was challenged was not defeated. I think, it's because it wouldn't be a one client arrangement, not with the way the company is set up. As it is I work for three different limited companies and I spend at least 3 out of 12 months in Cambridge.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,477

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    The 62% marginal tax rate was introduced by Labour. Both Labour and the Tories are being daft over marginal tax rates.

    But those earning enough to suffer these tax rates are - relatively speaking - well off so this is not the worst problem in the world to be complaining about. Rather it's the inevitable effect of an over-complicated tax code and the incessant desire of all Chancellors to tinker rather than simplify and raise tax in a clear, efficient and fair manner.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.
    Someone here fought and won a case some years back, so I don't think it's going to be too difficult. Also, it wouldn't be one client or one premises.
    I understand that 3 is the magic number
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2013
    Bobajob said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

    You know what to do then Bob.

    Vote Ed for 16oz Rib and the finest Havanas.


  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Bobajob said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

    It's almost as if we had the worst recession in 90 years leaving a ginormous deficit under the previous government.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Cyclefree said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    The 62% marginal tax rate was introduced by Labour. Both Labour and the Tories are being daft over marginal tax rates.

    But those earning enough to suffer these tax rates are - relatively speaking - well off so this is not the worst problem in the world to be complaining about. Rather it's the inevitable effect of an over-complicated tax code and the incessant desire of all Chancellors to tinker rather than simplify and raise tax in a clear, efficient and fair manner.
    The Child Tax saw my rates go from 40p to 52p+ overnight so forgive me for moaning. The guy is a f-wit

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,477
    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Rubbish. You misunderstand what Keynes meant when he made that statement.

    Where do you think the money for investment comes from? Where do you think the money for pensions (non-state ones anyway) comes from? Where do you think house deposits come from? etc., etc.,.

    There has not been enough saving during the fat years which is why we're all in such trouble now.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,477
    Bobajob said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    The 62% marginal tax rate was introduced by Labour. Both Labour and the Tories are being daft over marginal tax rates.

    But those earning enough to suffer these tax rates are - relatively speaking - well off so this is not the worst problem in the world to be complaining about. Rather it's the inevitable effect of an over-complicated tax code and the incessant desire of all Chancellors to tinker rather than simplify and raise tax in a clear, efficient and fair manner.
    The Child Tax saw my rates go from 40p to 52p+ overnight so forgive me for moaning. The guy is a f-wit

    I felt the same when Darling increased my marginal tax rate from 40p to 62p. But it happened and rather than moan endlessly I try and maintain a sense of proportion. It's not going to change back any time soon; more likely it will get worse, whether the Chancellor is Osborne or Balls or someone else.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,301
    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.
    Someone here fought and won a case some years back, so I don't think it's going to be too difficult. Also, it wouldn't be one client or one premises.
    I understand that 3 is the magic number
    Yes, the finance person already informed me that I can set up a personal service company without too much hassle if I want to avoid the marginal rates and even the top rate if and when I earn that much. I technically work for a single company, but they charge out my time to two other subsidiaries within the group when I'm not in London.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Bobajob said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

    And the poor are paying less income tax - do you oppose that?
  • Re IR35...absolutely make sure you have the issue of "substitution" properly covered. It doesn't mean you are in the clear if you have, but without it you are asking for a big bust up with the tax man...Certainly wouldn't hurt to actually have somebody substitute for you from time to time.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Cyclefree said:

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Rubbish. You misunderstand what Keynes meant when he made that statement.

    Where do you think house deposits come from?
    The government.


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,519
    RichardNavabi/AveryLP There is a somewhat different proposition teaching a class of 14 year olds at say Eton or Westminster to a class of 14 year olds in an average comprehensive, while you may be able to get away without a PGCE in the former you would certainly not be able to in the latter
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.

    Someone here fought and won a case some years back, so I don't think it's going to be too difficult. Also, it wouldn't be one client or one premises.
    I understand that 3 is the magic number
    Yes, the finance person already informed me that I can set up a personal service company without too much hassle if I want to avoid the marginal rates and even the top rate if and when I earn that much. I technically work for a single company, but they charge out my time to two other subsidiaries within the group when I'm not in London.
    You need to get some independent tax advice, or you could end up on the wrong end of a large retrospective tax bill.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

    It's almost as if we had the worst recession in 90 years leaving a ginormous deficit under the previous government.
    So why has Osborne increased spending then?
    Have a think about what the word "deficit" means.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,477
    Am off now. Can I recommend Misha Glenny's R4 prog on The Invention of Italy - on @ 8m tonight. Much of what he says can be found in David Gilmour's recent book on Italian history but worth listening to nonetheless.

    For all the ooh-ing and aah-ing over its art, food, etc we don't really know anything - or enough - about it. It is an underestimated country and its story is more complex, darker and more interesting than many realise.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    antifrank said:



    Have a think about what the word "deficit" means.

    It's the opposite of tim's post count ;-)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    antifrank said:

    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

    It's almost as if we had the worst recession in 90 years leaving a ginormous deficit under the previous government.
    So why has Osborne increased spending then?
    Have a think about what the word "deficit" means.

    Note to self: don't post in haste, particularly when being rude.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    James Landale tweets: Bumped into a Lib Dem who explained N Clegg's cold feet on free schools: "Teachers hate Gove. This winds up Gove. We need teachers."
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,301

    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:

    @MaxPB I'm afraid you make the perfect target for fleecing for more tax. Well-paid by most standards, never going to get any sympathy from the general public and where the likelihood of you departing elsewhere for the sake of a relatively narrow band taxed at a high rate is low.

    In both policy terms and political terms, this is a great tax grab. There's a lot to be said for sprinkling such tax grabs in narrow bands at various income points.

    It does, however, mean that I will start looking at general tax avoidance where I can. Setting up an individual company has already crossed my mind once or twice, especially since I may cross the 45p rate in the next 2-4 years.
    IR35. Good luck.

    Enough people here already do it without getting into IR35 difficulties. I don't think there will be any issues. If the government want to stop people avoiding tax then they should get rid of stupid marginal tax rates.
    And they only work for the one 'client', at their premises, all year round? Like I said, 'Good Luck', and read up IR35.

    Someone here fought and won a case some years back, so I don't think it's going to be too difficult. Also, it wouldn't be one client or one premises.
    I understand that 3 is the magic number
    Yes, the finance person already informed me that I can set up a personal service company without too much hassle if I want to avoid the marginal rates and even the top rate if and when I earn that much. I technically work for a single company, but they charge out my time to two other subsidiaries within the group when I'm not in London.
    You need to get some independent tax advice, or you could end up on the wrong end of a large retrospective tax bill.
    Yes, I intend to see someone before I make any decisions. I don't want to be in a situation where I owe £20-30k in back-taxes or something like that.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Rubbish. You misunderstand what Keynes meant when he made that statement.

    Where do you think the money for investment comes from? Where do you think the money for pensions (non-state ones anyway) comes from? Where do you think house deposits come from? etc., etc.,.

    There has not been enough saving during the fat years which is why we're all in such trouble now.

    I blame Mark "870K" Carney for crap interest rates.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    TGOHF said:

    Speaking of NIMBYS...

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 19m
    #Hinkley deal is " colossal waste of resources" say @theSNP "the Govt is forcing people to pay through the nose for nuclear white elephants"

    Any update on the Grangemouth stand off ?

    Like this?

    http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/labours-unwise-unquestioning-support-of-unite-grangemouth-strike/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,477
    Bobajob said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Rubbish. You misunderstand what Keynes meant when he made that statement.

    Where do you think house deposits come from?
    The government.


    i.e. other taxpayers.

    If saving were more attractive, people could save for themselves rather than have silly schemes like this. We're attacking the symptoms rather than the cause. And, pace, Tim: it wasn't just more housebuilding which kept house price/income ratios low but the fact that salaries - particularly in middle class professions such as law and the City did not disappear into the stratosphere, coupled with a relaxation of credit limits and loans of 5 / 7 or more X income. The flood of money into the UK from the late 1980's onwards is one of the reasons - not the only one, of course - which has decoupled house prices in London and the S East from the rest of the UK.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,014
    The survey at the top of the thread is quite interesting. It seems to me that there is something of a migration towards what would have previously been regarded as 'Tory views' in quite a few areas. Of course they aren't solely Tory views now, no perhaps were they ever, but even if it isn't translating into voting intention there's been something of a shift of the battleground.

    I don't recall anything like this effect under Labour, or prior Tory governments. Possibly that's just because I wasn't paying attention.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671
    Pulpstar said:

    Out of interest is the £90/MWatt a 'level' fee for the next 35 years ? Even though that is double today's cost once you factor in inflation over 35 years it is probably worth it, and doesn't seem too bad a deal. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    You can bet it is a starting point and will rise quickly
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671
    Pulpstar said:

    I wonder if NIMBYism will become a factor.

    I'm in favour of nuclear power but don't want a nuclear power station in my back yard.

    Can anyone tell me when the last nuclear power station was built in this country?

    What happens if we build one in Scotland ?
    Dream on , like to see them get planning permission on that.
  • TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


    I read somewhere that Grangemouth is responsible for 10 % of Scotland's GDP. Basically Ratcliffe has got Salmond by the balls.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Out of interest is the £90/MWatt a 'level' fee for the next 35 years ? Even though that is double today's cost once you factor in inflation over 35 years it is probably worth it, and doesn't seem too bad a deal. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    You can bet it is a starting point and will rise quickly
    It will rise with inflation. It guarantees a certain return on investment, but if energy prices are above £90 (adjusted for inflation), the taxpayer won't be forking out the extra.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,014
    tim said:


    House price inflation wrecks both mobility of labour and social mobility

    House ownership affects the mobility of labour. I guess you might spin it in a way where people just starting out could move and find a great place as they'd be renting, and then when they were firmly established in life the costs of moving were an incentive to stay put. You could spin it that way, however you could also declare a shooting season for estate agents.

    House price inflation probably re-defines social mobility, rather than wrecks it.

    At heart I think all political creeds would rather like it if the electorate didn't have baggage such as possessions, but then all political voters are pretty keen on their baggage.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Out of interest is the £90/MWatt a 'level' fee for the next 35 years ? Even though that is double today's cost once you factor in inflation over 35 years it is probably worth it, and doesn't seem too bad a deal. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    You can bet it is a starting point and will rise quickly
    Where? Where can I bet on that? Link please, quickly before whoever is offering that realise their mistake.

    As the prices are built into the contract then you're talking about free money. Woohoo!

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671

    Anorak said:

    TGOHF said:

    Speaking of NIMBYS...

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 19m
    #Hinkley deal is " colossal waste of resources" say @theSNP "the Govt is forcing people to pay through the nose for nuclear white elephants"

    Any update on the Grangemouth stand off ?

    Has Hinkley Point been floated around Wales, past the Isle of Man, and provocatively moored at the mouth of the Clyde?
    What'll happen to the Vulcan NRTE at Dounreay after independence is quite another matter, especially if we go ahead with a Trident replacement.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dounreay#Vulcan_NRTE
    "In 2011 the MoD stated that NRTE could be scaled down or closed after 2015 when the current series of tests ends. Computer modelling and confidence in new reactor designs meant testing would no longer be necessary.[18] The cost of decommissioning NRTE facilities when they become redundant, including nuclear waste disposal, was estimated at £2.1 billion in 2005."

    I expect the SNP will claim it's being done out of spite....,
    "</blockquote

    Dear dear , you cannot help yourself , sad Tory that you are
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    Bobajob said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

    It's almost as if we had the worst recession in 90 years leaving a ginormous deficit under the previous government.
    So why has Osborne increased spending then?
    Have a think about what the word "deficit" means.

    Err, the difference between income and spending, so why has Osborne increased spending then?
    And remember much of the "savings" from the 66% marginal rates and CB changes are being handed back to couples on mega earnings in the nanny subsidy anyway, so whatever economic impact it was supposed to have on the deficit has been massively diluted anyway
    Typing too far, too fast.

    But your second point is rubbish. The couples on "mega earnings" who will be benefiting from the subsidy will be vanishingly few (because there are vanishingly few of them). So much of the savings will not be handed back to them. Meanwhile, the additional nannies employed as a result of the subsidy will be contributing to the economy. And the parents who decide to go back into work because the sums now add up for them will be contributing to the economy.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671
    Bobajob said:

    Bobajob said:

    MaxPB said:

    Stupid marginal tax rates. Someone in finance just told me that because of allowance withdrawal the marginal rate from 100k to 118k is 60%. Bollocks off.

    On the bright side....if you are married with two kids you are in the top decile.....if you are single you are in the top 2%....so somewhere between 90-98% of your compatriots wouldn't object to your problems.....
    Nevertheless his rates are barmy - they create a massive disincentive for him to work harder. This government has cocked up taxation royally - I pay higher marginal rates than billionaires. It's effing insanity
    Vote Labour at the next GE if you think you'll be any better off.
    I have never paid more tax, nor higher rates, than I have under this tool of a chancellor

    He does not even reach the level of TOOL
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


    I read somewhere that Grangemouth is responsible for 10 % of Scotland's GDP. Basically Ratcliffe has got Salmond by the balls.

    But Salmond can't deliver Unite....

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,477
    tim said:

    @Cyclefree.

    I agree with most of that, increased inequality plus lower housebuilding and house price inflation leads to lower social mobility and a spiral of repetition which we are now seeing again, this time only six years after the last bubble popped.

    In the period between the wars and for 25 years after the second though housebuilding was massively higher.
    I'll dig out the house price/income ratios in the new towns around London for you one day, decent three bedroomed homes at twice annual income.

    Thanks Tim.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Out of interest is the £90/MWatt a 'level' fee for the next 35 years ? Even though that is double today's cost once you factor in inflation over 35 years it is probably worth it, and doesn't seem too bad a deal. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    You can bet it is a starting point and will rise quickly
    It will rise with inflation. It guarantees a certain return on investment, but if energy prices are above £90 (adjusted for inflation), the taxpayer won't be forking out the extra.
    Rob , hopefully you are right , but hard to believe we will not pay through the nose for it , my only hope is independence and we will be getting free energy and laughing at you guys paying a fortune.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    So this massive price rise in London will rule out even more London properties from the help to buy scheme - meaning more loan help for the rest of the country.

    Win- win ;)
  • Cyclefree said:

    Am off now. Can I recommend Misha Glenny's R4 prog on The Invention of Italy - on @ 8m tonight. Much of what he says can be found in David Gilmour's recent book on Italian history but worth listening to nonetheless.

    For all the ooh-ing and aah-ing over its art, food, etc we don't really know anything - or enough - about it. It is an underestimated country and its story is more complex, darker and more interesting than many realise.

    The Dark Heart of Italy is also very good on that:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/jan/11/highereducation.news2

    Italians - they love children, eat like kings and have beautiful architecture, but they have created one f****d up country.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


    I read somewhere that Grangemouth is responsible for 10 % of Scotland's GDP. Basically Ratcliffe has got Salmond by the balls.

    But Salmond can't deliver Unite....

    Why would he want to , the plant will be union free or shut before long
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Out of interest is the £90/MWatt a 'level' fee for the next 35 years ? Even though that is double today's cost once you factor in inflation over 35 years it is probably worth it, and doesn't seem too bad a deal. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    You can bet it is a starting point and will rise quickly
    Not sure about inflation but it's a level cost irrespective of wholesale prices at least.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


    I read somewhere that Grangemouth is responsible for 10 % of Scotland's GDP. Basically Ratcliffe has got Salmond by the balls.

    I believe that was an exaggeration, but certainly a big chunk

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,014
    tim said:

    @Omnium

    While a shooting season on estate agents might appeal they'd definitely move the goalposts.

    Although the photographs on the estate agent culling website would make the goalposts seem so large that they might not even need to move them at all.

    Quite, but when you got them in your sights you'd realise they were rats in a drainpipe.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


    I read somewhere that Grangemouth is responsible for 10 % of Scotland's GDP. Basically Ratcliffe has got Salmond by the balls.

    But Salmond can't deliver Unite....

    Why would he want to , the plant will be union free or shut before long
    Surely he would prefer the former to the latter ?
  • malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


    I read somewhere that Grangemouth is responsible for 10 % of Scotland's GDP. Basically Ratcliffe has got Salmond by the balls.

    But Salmond can't deliver Unite....

    Why would he want to , the plant will be union free or shut before long
    It'll look really bad if Eck sides with an English billionaire tax exile against salt of the earth Scottish workers.

  • Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Depends how they save it - if they literally just put it under the mattress then that is true.

    Yet saving money in a bank or building society makes it available to other people who may have a better immediate use for it.



  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    So this massive price rise in London will rule out even more London properties from the help to buy scheme - meaning more loan help for the rest of the country.

    Win- win ;)

    Not really, outer London houses will go from £350k to £450k taking up the slack
    Correct - that is probably the prognosis --- you have been right on top of this story so far
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Ineos

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    TGOHF said:


    Well Unite are consulting the members on it.

    I really dont think that's where things are at. Unite havent got anything to consult members on.
    If they're not careful, Unite are shortly going to be explaining to a number of their Scottish members why they're now unemployed, as a refinery is cut up for scrap.
    I'm sure those threats are a consideration for workers deciding whether to accept re-engagement on inferior terms or not but it's their call ultimately.
    Plant has lost £150M a year for lady 4 years.
    INEOS do not take prisoners - they moved to Switzerland to reduce their tax bill:

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/11/ineos-headquarters-switzerland-tax-bill

    It doesn't help with clarity that the parent company moved out of Britain to Switzerland. That was its response when the UK Treasury turned down a request to defer a VAT bill when Ineos was in financial difficulties with the onset of the downturn.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24560317

    The energy complex's operator, Ineos, has made clear it can be ruthless, as it did earlier this month when it simply and permanently closed down a fairly new chemicals plant in Hull. It was keen that workers at Grangemouth got that message.


    I read somewhere that Grangemouth is responsible for 10 % of Scotland's GDP. Basically Ratcliffe has got Salmond by the balls.

    But Salmond can't deliver Unite....

    Why would he want to , the plant will be union free or shut before long
    It'll look really bad if Eck sides with an English billionaire tax exile against salt of the earth Scottish workers.

    If it closes it will be Westminster's fault. ...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    Grandiose said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Out of interest is the £90/MWatt a 'level' fee for the next 35 years ? Even though that is double today's cost once you factor in inflation over 35 years it is probably worth it, and doesn't seem too bad a deal. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    You can bet it is a starting point and will rise quickly
    Not sure about inflation but it's a level cost irrespective of wholesale prices at least.
    Actually, it is a declining cost with increasing wholesale prices. The way I understand it is that we pay the difference between the wholesale cost and £90, if the wholesale cost is higher, we don't pay anything, if it is lower, we subsidise it to £90.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Depends how they save it - if they literally just put it under the mattress then that is true.

    Yet saving money in a bank or building society makes it available to other people who may have a better immediate use for it.



    Except for the fact that said institutions aren't lending like they were - cf Alan Brooke's experience which he cites below

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:
    Douglas Bader managed with fewer.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,014

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Depends how they save it - if they literally just put it under the mattress then that is true.

    Yet saving money in a bank or building society makes it available to other people who may have a better immediate use for it.

    'Savers' are the economy. Taking Labour yesterday, or 25 years ago and being able to trade that for goods and services is precisely what it is about.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,192
    Omnium said:

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Depends how they save it - if they literally just put it under the mattress then that is true.

    Yet saving money in a bank or building society makes it available to other people who may have a better immediate use for it.

    'Savers' are the economy. Taking Labour yesterday, or 25 years ago and being able to trade that for goods and services is precisely what it is about.

    I think this explains it very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxyB29bDbBA
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    I feel sorry for the NIMBYs in Gravelines, France, with 6 nuclear reactors at one site:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Country_Profiles/Countries_D-M/france_nuclear.gif
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited October 2013
    Unfortunate headline considering this date. :) The Courier - Navy Sea King gets a little help from RAF Chinook

    "The MoD has released remarkable video footage showing a Sea King rescue helicopter being the subject of its own rescue — as it is winched into the air by a Chinook.

    The Royal Navy Sea King, from HMS Gannet in Prestwick, had been grounded at Kings House Hotel for almost a week after a fault was found during a training exercise in Glen Coe on October 13.

    With roads in the area too narrow for a low-loader to reach, defence chiefs decided to call in help from a massive Chinook based at RAF Odiham in Hampshire."

    Happy Trafalgar Day :)



  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Mark McGuigan for Shrewsbury and Atcham MP
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,519
    GeoffM True enough, but the left inevitably prefer the victim mentality and are already rushing over the story
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,301
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    So this massive price rise in London will rule out even more London properties from the help to buy scheme - meaning more loan help for the rest of the country.

    Win- win ;)

    Not really, outer London houses will go from £350k to £450k taking up the slack
    Depends on the area. My parent's house (4 bed semi) in a decent postcode was just valued at £750k.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    RobD said:

    I feel sorry for the NIMBYs in Gravelines, France, with 6 nuclear reactors at one site:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Country_Profiles/Countries_D-M/france_nuclear.gif

    Gravelines, France is around about the nearest point to England...
  • William Hill - Will Anyone Leave The UK Cabinet By End Of 2014?

    No 5/6
    Yes 5/6

    Yes must be reasonable value when you consider that there are over fourteen months to go. Post IndyRef must surely be the sweet spot. Or would that look like panic so close to the next UK GE?
  • tim said:

    MaxPB said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    So this massive price rise in London will rule out even more London properties from the help to buy scheme - meaning more loan help for the rest of the country.

    Win- win ;)

    Not really, outer London houses will go from £350k to £450k taking up the slack
    Depends on the area. My parent's house (4 bed semi) in a decent postcode was just valued at £750k.
    My point wasn't that all houses in outer London are the same price.
    Seen three-bed terraced houses in Ilford North, similar to ours, going for 350K
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,014
    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Depends how they save it - if they literally just put it under the mattress then that is true.

    Yet saving money in a bank or building society makes it available to other people who may have a better immediate use for it.

    'Savers' are the economy. Taking Labour yesterday, or 25 years ago and being able to trade that for goods and services is precisely what it is about.

    I think this explains it very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxyB29bDbBA
    And also illustrates the problems in that there is no safe way to take work done now and translate it into services at a later date. Money and government bonds (essentially long-term money) are supposed to fulfil that role, but it's not entirely clear that they do it very well. Banks are just store-houses. They like to tell you that your pound is safe with them, but it'll have done the rounds if and when you ever withdraw it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    Next said:

    RobD said:

    I feel sorry for the NIMBYs in Gravelines, France, with 6 nuclear reactors at one site:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Country_Profiles/Countries_D-M/france_nuclear.gif

    Gravelines, France is around about the nearest point to England...
    so we could just annex that bit and build a few more cross-channel power lines ;-)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    William Hill - Will Anyone Leave The UK Cabinet By End Of 2014?

    No 5/6
    Yes 5/6

    Yes must be reasonable value when you consider that there are over fourteen months to go. Post IndyRef must surely be the sweet spot. Or would that look like panic so close to the next UK GE?

    Good chance of a LD getting caught doing something or other before then...
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited October 2013

    William Hill - Will Anyone Leave The UK Cabinet By End Of 2014?

    No 5/6
    Yes 5/6

    Yes must be reasonable value when you consider that there are over fourteen months to go. Post IndyRef must surely be the sweet spot. Or would that look like panic so close to the next UK GE?

    Post Euro elections must surely be the sweet spot. Cameron will need to be seen to respond to the thrashing his party gets.

    Looks like Will Hill have put the work experience boy back on the politics pitch.
  • GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:
    Douglas Bader managed with fewer.

    If Mr Kawczynski needs a PR manager, Geoff, you're just the man for the job.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,192
    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    Bobajob said:

    @cyclefree

    Savers don't help the economy - paradox of thrift

    Depends how they save it - if they literally just put it under the mattress then that is true.

    Yet saving money in a bank or building society makes it available to other people who may have a better immediate use for it.

    'Savers' are the economy. Taking Labour yesterday, or 25 years ago and being able to trade that for goods and services is precisely what it is about.

    I think this explains it very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxyB29bDbBA
    And also illustrates the problems in that there is no safe way to take work done now and translate it into services at a later date. Money and government bonds (essentially long-term money) are supposed to fulfil that role, but it's not entirely clear that they do it very well. Banks are just store-houses. They like to tell you that your pound is safe with them, but it'll have done the rounds if and when you ever withdraw it.
    If you want sure things in life take tips from OGH (except the Tristam one, that is definitely dodgy). Otherwise investment is a risk and the risk hopefully brings rewards but they are not guaranteed.

    It all adds to the fun of life. The pound (or tuppance) in the banks that does the rounds does indeed allow railways to be built in Africa and fleets of ocean greyhounds. Capital and saving is not an end in itself but a means to an end, namely investment. As the bible puts it to hide your talents away is a sin and does nobody any good (or something like that, the details are a little vague now).

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Why Northerners don’t vote Tory

    YouGov President Peter Kellner on why the Conservative party's trouble with northerners may have less than to do with economic, ideological or social factors than one might expect

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/21/why-northerners-dont-vote-tory/
  • Neil said:

    William Hill - Will Anyone Leave The UK Cabinet By End Of 2014?

    No 5/6
    Yes 5/6

    Yes must be reasonable value when you consider that there are over fourteen months to go. Post IndyRef must surely be the sweet spot. Or would that look like panic so close to the next UK GE?

    Post Euro elections must surely be the sweet spot. Cameron will need to be seen to respond to the thrashing his party gets.

    Looks like Will Hill have put the work experience boy back on the politics pitch.
    Well, Hills were pricing the SNP at 4/1 for the Dunfermline by-election before they suspended their prices two days ago. The nearest competitor (Coral) prices the SNP at 3/1. I wonder if they've maybe mispriced that market.

    If that Yes price is still at 5/6 on Friday I may consider re-investing part of my profits. Dislike the potentially long time-frame, but you never know, somebody may meet the proverbial bus next month. When was the last time the Grim Reaper took a serving member of a UK Cabinet?
  • tim said:

    Neil said:

    William Hill - Will Anyone Leave The UK Cabinet By End Of 2014?

    No 5/6
    Yes 5/6

    Yes must be reasonable value when you consider that there are over fourteen months to go. Post IndyRef must surely be the sweet spot. Or would that look like panic so close to the next UK GE?

    Post Euro elections must surely be the sweet spot. Cameron will need to be seen to respond to the thrashing his party gets.

    Looks like Will Hill have put the work experience boy back on the politics pitch.
    Free money, the chums are obviously going to bring in some women and state educated blokes next June/July
    Mmm... I may need to open the old wallet before Friday.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    If that Yes price is still at 5/6 on Friday I may consider re-investing part of my profits. Dislike the potentially long time-frame, but you never know, somebody may meet the proverbial bus next month. When was the last time the Grim Reaper took a serving member of a UK Cabinet?

    You dont need a grim reaper - the sub Cabinet reshuffle this year makes one at Cabinet level next year almost a certainty. That 5/6 wont last the night after everyone who has seen your post piles in!

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Is it really that outrageous to suggest the one legged man might get a job?

    Or is it more outrageous to consign him to unemployment for life.

    Sure, his illiteracy and drug addiction are a problem, but both are curable, and either prosthetics or a wheelchair are no bar to employment.

    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:
    Douglas Bader managed with fewer.

    If Mr Kawczynski needs a PR manager, Geoff, you're just the man for the job.

  • Is it really that outrageous to suggest the one legged man might get a job?

    Or is it more outrageous to consign him to unemployment for life.

    Sure, his illiteracy and drug addiction are a problem, but both are curable, and either prosthetics or a wheelchair are no bar to employment.



    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:
    Douglas Bader managed with fewer.

    If Mr Kawczynski needs a PR manager, Geoff, you're just the man for the job.

    Nope.

    But there is a time and a place for doing it, and maybe it might have been a tad more politic to let others proffer the advice, in a different kind of way?

    By the way, Kawczynski doesn't sound a very English name. Has anybody checked his immigration papers? ;-)
  • New Thread - Girlband edition
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Kawcynski did make some (spurned) offers to help the man via govt schemes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tory-mp-daniel-kawczynski-to-onelegged-beggar-get-a-job-8893763.html

    though that did not seem to go down very well with the beggar.

    Is it really that outrageous to suggest the one legged man might get a job?

    Or is it more outrageous to consign him to unemployment for life.

    Sure, his illiteracy and drug addiction are a problem, but both are curable, and either prosthetics or a wheelchair are no bar to employment.



    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:
    Douglas Bader managed with fewer.

    If Mr Kawczynski needs a PR manager, Geoff, you're just the man for the job.

    Nope.

    But there is a time and a place for doing it, and maybe it might have been a tad more politic to let others proffer the advice, in a different kind of way?

    By the way, Kawczynski doesn't sound a very English name. Has anybody checked his immigration papers? ;-)
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    There is definitely a significant property bubble in London. I've been watching house prices in my area.

    Check this:

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43684409.html

    A fairly average converted-warehouse flat, with 1 bed, in a pleasant but not amazing part of Camden. Note the IKEA furniture.

    £675,000???

    Even more insane, this impressive loft style apartment costs £800,000

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-40691617.html

    .... in Hackney.

    £800,000 for a one bed flat in.... Hackney.

    Surely unsustainable. And yet is is sustained. Hmm.

    •1,561sq.ft One Bedroom Apartment

    1,561 square feet is pretty huge isn't it? Sounds like a whole top floor.

    You are better off drinking than watching property prices. They always apply to someone else's place. There's always a reason why yours does not get to dollar.

    I agree with the drinking bit, obviously. It is nonetheless compelling, in a haunting way, to watch this bubble inflate: I believe I was the first person on pb to note its existence - the vigorous recovery of the London property market - about two years ago. Now it approaches tulip fever.

    £800,000 for a one bed flat in Hackney, however huge the space, is lunatic - or so it seems to me. More than three quarters of a million quid for a flat in E8??!! You could have bought entire streets in Hackney for £800,000, about a decade back, and had change for a car.

    My theory is that these flats are being sold to overseas investors who have literally no idea what "Hackney" is like. They just know it is in London and that's good enough: London is the safest bet, it is the world property capital, its prices never seriously go down, and the flat looks nice in the pictures. So they buy.
    I heard an anecdote recently about an overseas investor who bought a luxury riverside apartment.

    Its an ex council flat in Thamesmead.
  • Kawcynski did make some (spurned) offers to help the man via govt schemes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tory-mp-daniel-kawczynski-to-onelegged-beggar-get-a-job-8893763.html

    though that did not seem to go down very well with the beggar.


    Is it really that outrageous to suggest the one legged man might get a job?

    Or is it more outrageous to consign him to unemployment for life.

    Sure, his illiteracy and drug addiction are a problem, but both are curable, and either prosthetics or a wheelchair are no bar to employment.



    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:
    Douglas Bader managed with fewer.

    If Mr Kawczynski needs a PR manager, Geoff, you're just the man for the job.

    Nope.

    But there is a time and a place for doing it, and maybe it might have been a tad more politic to let others proffer the advice, in a different kind of way?

    By the way, Kawczynski doesn't sound a very English name. Has anybody checked his immigration papers? ;-)

    It's the laughable incongruity of it, Fox.

    Lofty Tory MP tells one-legged beggar to get job. I mean, even if he has a point, it's not the time, the place, the manner.....

    Not exactly showing the common touch, is he?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,519
    PeterthePunter - It could have been a perfect Harry Enfield sketch, but I expect even he would have rejected it as too absurd!
This discussion has been closed.