A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.
100%
isam makes the mistake of saying "marijuana is bad therefore it should be illegal" rather than explain why it being illegal and unregulated works when it so self-evidently doesn't. Prohibition has failed and moonshine alcohol was not safer or better than legal regulated alcohol.
It should be illegal in the sense that people are punished for using it, not the way it is now.
Chinese ventilators that ministers heralded as vital to the NHS’s efforts to tackle Covid-19 were badly built, unsuitable for use in hospitals and potentially dangerous for patients, it has emerged.
A well-placed NHS source said the incident highlighted problems that had occurred with a range of medical supplies and equipment ordered from China during the coronavirus pandemic.
“Some other stuff ordered from China recently, especially personal protective equipment, has also turned out to be either of a lesser quality than what we need or to be the wrong thing altogether, like T-shirts instead of long-sleeved surgical gowns” they said.
Just taking the piss. Flog the west any old shit, because they will be too busy to worry about any come back.
Which is why we need to increase our own capacity to manufacture PPE, medical equipment etc.
Whether the government realises that is doubtful.
We've been through this before.
And the result will be whether we see new PPE factories being opened in the coming months.
Yeah, but your claim is that the government have yet to realise it. It's easy to see that they have.
I didn't claim anything I said it was doubtful and it is doubtful.
If its not then perhaps you could tell us when new PPE factories will come into production in this country.
OK, your claim it is doubtful that they have realised it. Would a government that has not realised it already be talking about a new strategy to increase domestic production?
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.
100%
isam makes the mistake of saying "marijuana is bad therefore it should be illegal" rather than explain why it being illegal and unregulated works when it so self-evidently doesn't. Prohibition has failed and moonshine alcohol was not safer or better than legal regulated alcohol.
It should be illegal in the sense that people are punished for using it, not the way it is now.
People would still use it and it would still be unregulated.
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problem
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
between tax and NI my net rate is currently 23.99 and I am not even in the higher rate tax band
I think he's much better at this stuff than Hillary: He's coming at it straight on and it's clear what his defence is. When she was dealing with Her Emails she just kind of let it rumble on and tried to change the subject and point people to her website, which worked well in the debates but never put it to rest, then the Comey thing blew it back up at just the wrong time.
Chinese ventilators that ministers heralded as vital to the NHS’s efforts to tackle Covid-19 were badly built, unsuitable for use in hospitals and potentially dangerous for patients, it has emerged.
A well-placed NHS source said the incident highlighted problems that had occurred with a range of medical supplies and equipment ordered from China during the coronavirus pandemic.
“Some other stuff ordered from China recently, especially personal protective equipment, has also turned out to be either of a lesser quality than what we need or to be the wrong thing altogether, like T-shirts instead of long-sleeved surgical gowns” they said.
Just taking the piss. Flog the west any old shit, because they will be too busy to worry about any come back.
Which is why we need to increase our own capacity to manufacture PPE, medical equipment etc.
Whether the government realises that is doubtful.
We've been through this before.
And the result will be whether we see new PPE factories being opened in the coming months.
Yeah, but your claim is that the government have yet to realise it. It's easy to see that they have.
I didn't claim anything I said it was doubtful and it is doubtful.
If its not then perhaps you could tell us when new PPE factories will come into production in this country.
OK, your claim it is doubtful that they have realised it. Would a government that has not realised it already be talking about a new strategy to increase domestic production?
I shall believe it when new PPE factories become available.
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
between tax and NI my net rate is currently 23.99 and I am not even in the higher rate tax band
And that's not even counting Employers NI! In reality of the pot of money your employer has to pay you you're being taxed even more!
Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150k
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problem
Its been investigated by the Police and the courts in the past and overseas and it doesn't work. We could end up like in America where roughly half of the jail population at one point where in for drug offences and drug use would still occur.
And the drugs would still be unregulated. Prohibition does not work.
SUCCESSFUL MANUFACTURING OF CLINICAL-GRADE SARS-CoV-2 SPECIFIC T CELLS FOR ADOPTIVE CELL THERAPY (not my CAPS... but nonetheless, interesting.) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20077487v1 Background Adoptive therapy with SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for COVID-19 has not been reported. The feasibility of rapid clinical-grade manufacturing of virus-specific T cells from convalescent donors has not been demonstrated for this or prior pandemics. Methods One unit of whole blood was collected from each convalescent donor following standard blood bank practices. After the plasma was separated and stored separately, the leukocytes were stimulated using overlapping peptides of SARS-CoV-2, covering the immunodominant sequence domains of the S protein and the complete sequence of the N and M proteins. Thereafter, functionally reactive cells were enriched overnight using an automated device capturing IFNγ-secreting cells. Findings From 1x10[9] leukocytes, 0.56 to 1.16x10[6] IFNγ+ T cells were produced from each of the first two donors. Most of the T cells (64% to 71%) were IFNγ+, with preferential enrichment of CD56+ T cells, effector memory T cells, and effector memory RA+ T cells. TCRVβ spectratyping revealed oligoclonal distribution, with over-representation of subfamilies including Vβ3, Vβ16 and Vβ17. With just two donors, the probability that a recipient in the same ethnic group would share at least one donor HLA allele or one haplotype could be as high as >90% and >30%, respectively. Interpretations This study is limited by small number of donors and absence of recipient data; however, crucial first proof-of-principle data are provided demonstrating the feasibility of clinical-grade production of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for urgent clinical use, conceivably with plasma therapy concurrently. Our data showing that virus-specific T cells can be detected easily after brief stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 specific peptides suggest that a parallel diagnostic assay can be developed alongside serology testing....
Nigel, thanks once again for sharing interesting results. Query - is this an (enhanced) harvesting technique, or could cell lines be grown in vitro to actually manufacture the virus-specific T cells?
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
Same as with alcohol.
Legalise it, regulate it, tax it while targeting police resources (and revenue resources) at criminal gangs and it would be cheaper, healthier and safer to buy the legal version in the shop for most people than it would to buy the unregulated, illegal, untaxed version from the gangs.
Also the drugs you named are not legal ones you can buy over the counter like alcohol or tobacco or ibuprofen.
'nihilists' is one word for them. I can think of others...
Really? What word do you apply to people who refuse to vote for somebody they believe to be a senile rapist?
Wait, which one's the senile rapist?
Well, it's not proven in either case, but I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to conclude both of them. And Biden's cognitive decline seems worse than Trump's, which makes me wonder why all the liberals who were going on about Trump's lack of intelligence being so important for the last four years would pick Biden.
Biden isn't as sharp as he was but there's no sign that he's losing his mind, it's a totally different kind of thing to Trump.
You notice it less with Trump because you get used to him being confused and incoherent but the decline is really dramatic if you look at a clip from when he was younger and realise that he used to be able to express coherent thoughts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w47wgdhso
Wow its a different person.
Biden I think it is clear he's losing his mind. And with the rape allegations surrounding him with Reade too . . . he is not a good candidate at all.
Disagree, his memory's going a bit but his mind's still there. And they were always going to put up a rape accuser against any man who ran.
Is that really a great example?
Are there people as lucid and coherent at 75 as they were at 34?
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problem
Its been investigated by the Police and the courts in the past and overseas and it doesn't work. We could end up like in America where roughly half of the jail population at one point where in for drug offences and drug use would still occur.
And the drugs would still be unregulated. Prohibition does not work.
Might as well legalise all drugs, not just marijuana if that’s what you think. It’s no safer. I’d be prepared to bet a fair amount you were never a big drug user as a teenager
Cyclefree, thanks for a thought provoking article. I have also been giving some thought as to how the world will be different post-COVID, but primarily within my professional domain, not for society at large across the whole spectrum.
On IHT, my initial reaction is that spouses do need the exemption. How do you disentangle each spouse's contribution to joint assets, such as their principal residence? Who you evict the surviving spouse who is property rich and cash poor? How would you deal with the spouse who stopped working to bring up the family to enable the other spouse to build the business that created the family's wealth?
But, in principle, I agree. We need to be open to rethinking all our assumptions on government and taxation.
Are there people as lucid and coherent at 75 as they were at 34?
Yes, definitely - a lot of people will be much better communicators at 75 than 34. They may have lost something in quick repartee but a lot of old people can still speak clearly.
More to the point, when you watch Trump now, it's very clear that there's something wrong with him beyond a weak memory or whatever.
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
Same as with alcohol.
Legalise it, regulate it, tax it while targeting police resources (and revenue resources) at criminal gangs and it would be cheaper, healthier and safer to buy the legal version in the shop for most people than it would to buy the unregulated, illegal, untaxed version from the gangs.
Also the drugs you named are not legal ones you can buy over the counter like alcohol or tobacco or ibuprofen.
True - my point was that we already know the price of legally manufacturing and distributing even the hardest drugs. Complete with security in the supply chain. And much less volume.
Between the legal and illegal cost of supply is a huge gap. This applies to all drugs. So it would be perfectly possible to have a legal product that was
1) Cheaper 2) Involved a hefty tax payment
The only issue would be to make sure that 2) doesn't break 1)
This is an issue already in the US, in some places that have legalised marijuana.
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problem
The war on drugs has failed. A significant number of people want to take drugs. It's impossible to police. Compared to alcohol the damage they do is small. Decriminalise, tax, and stop throwing massive resource at trying to stop people taking psychoactive substances, they always have, always will. Yes some people will be damaged - as is the case with alcohol. Most people don't have whisky for breakfast, but some do. The effects of alcohol clog up A&Es (or did until recently) every weekend.
Most drug use is sensible, recreational and non-harmful. We should encourage sensible, recreational use. With support services for those who need it.
Stop spending huge amounts globally trying to stop the drug trade. It doesn't work.
I have personal experience of living with an alcoholic and I know of what I speak in relation to drugs. From my view alcoholism is generally much more damaging to those who abuse it and those around them.
There should be proper support for drug addicts of all description, be they legal or illegal drugs.
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problem
Its been investigated by the Police and the courts in the past and overseas and it doesn't work. We could end up like in America where roughly half of the jail population at one point where in for drug offences and drug use would still occur.
And the drugs would still be unregulated. Prohibition does not work.
Might as well legalise all drugs, not just marijuana if that’s what you think. It’s no safer. I’d be prepared to bet a fair amount you were never a big drug user as a teenager
Yes we might as well legalise and regulate them and educate the public. Just like we might as well legalise and regulate all alcohol and educate the public, we don't just legalise low-strength alcohol.
David Singleton, 42, a senior NHS official in London who has been working at the capital’s Covid-19 Nightingale hospital, launched the business two weeks ago to trade in visors, masks and gowns.
David Singleton, 42, a senior NHS official in London who has been working at the capital’s Covid-19 Nightingale hospital, launched the business two weeks ago to trade in visors, masks and gowns.
I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
Same as with alcohol.
Legalise it, regulate it, tax it while targeting police resources (and revenue resources) at criminal gangs and it would be cheaper, healthier and safer to buy the legal version in the shop for most people than it would to buy the unregulated, illegal, untaxed version from the gangs.
Also the drugs you named are not legal ones you can buy over the counter like alcohol or tobacco or ibuprofen.
True - my point was that we already know the price of legally manufacturing and distributing even the hardest drugs. Complete with security in the supply chain. And much less volume.
Between the legal and illegal cost of supply is a huge gap. This applies to all drugs. So it would be perfectly possible to have a legal product that was
1) Cheaper 2) Involved a hefty tax payment
The only issue would be to make sure that 2) doesn't break 1)
This is an issue already in the US, in some places that have legalised marijuana.
Well said. Sadly too often there's a desire to get immediate high taxes, like in all walks of life would be best off to start with a low tax and that can if its too low be raised in future budgets.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* people
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
Yes, to your first point.
Not even at a reduced rate. Make pension income NI-able. NI is a tax like any other now.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150k
SUCCESSFUL MANUFACTURING OF CLINICAL-GRADE SARS-CoV-2 SPECIFIC T CELLS FOR ADOPTIVE CELL THERAPY (not my CAPS... but nonetheless, interesting.) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20077487v1 Background Adoptive therapy with SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for COVID-19 has not been reported. The feasibility of rapid clinical-grade manufacturing of virus-specific T cells from convalescent donors has not been demonstrated for this or prior pandemics. Methods One unit of whole blood was collected from each convalescent donor following standard blood bank practices. After the plasma was separated and stored separately, the leukocytes were stimulated using overlapping peptides of SARS-CoV-2, covering the immunodominant sequence domains of the S protein and the complete sequence of the N and M proteins. Thereafter, functionally reactive cells were enriched overnight using an automated device capturing IFNγ-secreting cells. Findings From 1x10[9] leukocytes, 0.56 to 1.16x10[6] IFNγ+ T cells were produced from each of the first two donors. Most of the T cells (64% to 71%) were IFNγ+, with preferential enrichment of CD56+ T cells, effector memory T cells, and effector memory RA+ T cells. TCRVβ spectratyping revealed oligoclonal distribution, with over-representation of subfamilies including Vβ3, Vβ16 and Vβ17. With just two donors, the probability that a recipient in the same ethnic group would share at least one donor HLA allele or one haplotype could be as high as >90% and >30%, respectively. Interpretations This study is limited by small number of donors and absence of recipient data; however, crucial first proof-of-principle data are provided demonstrating the feasibility of clinical-grade production of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for urgent clinical use, conceivably with plasma therapy concurrently. Our data showing that virus-specific T cells can be detected easily after brief stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 specific peptides suggest that a parallel diagnostic assay can be developed alongside serology testing....
Nigel, thanks once again for sharing interesting results. Query - is this an (enhanced) harvesting technique, or could cell lines be grown in vitro to actually manufacture the virus-specific T cells?
Enhanced harvesting. (In time, I've no doubt cell lines could be manufactured, but I have little idea of how long it might take to do so reliably... @Charles ? ) From the paper: ...For the T cells to be effective for virus control, they must act fast before complete donor-cell rejection. In this regard, the CCS system selects functionally rather than phenotypically and preferentially enriches those T cells that can secrete IFNγ within hours after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 specific peptides by the nature of memory recall response. In contrast, de novo alloreactivity takes several days to develop, and could be longer in severely lymphopenic patients with severe COVID-19. Phenotypically, the CCS isolated cells are enriched for CD56+ T cells, CD4+ TEM cells, and CD8+ TEM and TEMRA cells, all of which are known to have potent and rapid pathogen response (thus captured preferentially by CCS)
For pandemics caused by novel pathogens, development of specific vaccines for active immunization takes time; however, passive immunity can be acquired immediately via blood component transfusion from recovered patients. In this regard, promising preliminary data have been reported on the use of plasmatherapy forCOVID-19. Conceivably, our adoptiveT-cell therapy approach can be easily combined with plasma infusion from the same donor or different donor. T cells are a “living drug” and can expand in vivo, which is in contrast pharmacokinetically to antibody, of which the level universally drops after infusion because of consumption or natural metabolism. Accordingly, a unit of donor’s blood may potentially treat more patients and the therapeutic effects of T cells may be more durable than that of plasma therapy. For a dose of 5x103 SARS-CoV-2 T cells/kg, the cells from the donor with mild symptoms could provide sufficient cells for 3 adult recipients; correspondingly, the donor with severe symptoms could potentially benefit as many as 6 recipients. Pharmacodynamically, SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells may be used alone or synergistically with plasma therapy to establish immediately an adaptive immune status mimicking that after successful vaccination. Under the protection of adaptive immunity, the body will not depend solely on innate immune the CCS system)...
I suppose Johnson might save something if he went for a low tax, singapore on sea, bonfire of the regulations, quango crushing, public sector munching Thatcherism on steroids.
That policy might make some money.
Nowhere near as much as the untold billions he's blown trying to protect healthy people from getting a disease that doesn't threaten them, of course, but something.
Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* people
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
I rather got the impression that the "system" doesn't want mass testing if it involves the "wrong" kind of process - using the "wrong" labs, testing being out of control of the "right" people.
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150k
Yes, it's why I don't understand Richard's proposal. Our tax system works very much like he says it should already, just without having multiple rates.
Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* people
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
I rather got the impression that the "system" doesn't want mass testing if it involves the "wrong" kind of process - using the "wrong" labs, testing being out of control of the "right" people.
See moaning of sources to the Guardian that Deloitte and Amazon were brought onboard.
I suppose Johnson might save something if he went for a low tax, singapore on sea, bonfire of the regulations, quango crushing, public sector munching Thatcherism on steroids.
That policy might make some money.
Nowhere near as much as the untold billions he's blown trying to protect healthy people from getting a disease that doesn't threaten them, of course, but something.
The death toll when nothing is done was predicted to be half a million people.
Good review article describing what we know about the viral disease, in Nature:
The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0311-8 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alongside investigations into the virology of SARS-CoV-2, understanding the fundamental physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Here, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression. From nascent reports describing SARS-CoV-2, we make inferences on the basis of the parallel pathophysiological and immunological features of the other human coronaviruses targeting the lower respiratory tract — severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Finally, we highlight the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation...
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Needlessly over-complicated from Freeman in the fawning stakes, he should gave just posted a gif of some noble creature of the Serengeti.
You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figures
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332 B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£ b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150k
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
“The news that our Prime Minister has become a father again is the second piece of personal good news he has had in a month. And once again, his opponents have shown that they cannot stand it — or even credit it — when something good happens to him.”
Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* people
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
I rather got the impression that the "system" doesn't want mass testing if it involves the "wrong" kind of process - using the "wrong" labs, testing being out of control of the "right" people.
See moaning of sources to the Guardian that Deloitte and Amazon were brought onboard.
What was interesting was the vagueness of the complaints in the BBC reports - questioning the target of 100k, saying that the process plan for testing usage was important and meeeeeeeeeah.....
Almost as if they wanted to say something extra but couldn't - like "We don't want there to be more tests".
Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* people
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
I suppose Johnson might save something if he went for a low tax, singapore on sea, bonfire of the regulations, quango crushing, public sector munching Thatcherism on steroids.
That policy might make some money.
Nowhere near as much as the untold billions he's blown trying to protect healthy people from getting a disease that doesn't threaten them, of course, but something.
The death toll when nothing is done was predicted to be half a million people.
The number of healthy people of all ages that Corona has killed in england during this pandemic?
Under 1,000.
60 and under? 250.
According to NHS England.
Its a disease that targets the vulnerable old. We have known that for a while
Betting post: I`ve posted a few times over the last few weeks and months that Trump`s narcicism means that he doesn`t fight battles he thinks he won`t win. His ego can`t take defeat. I`m still not convinced he`ll run. And I believe that if he does he will lose - and lose badly. That was my position before the virus and think it even more so now. Accordingly, I`ve been laying Trump all over the shop both to win the GE and to be the Rep nominee.
I now see that Trump himself is starting to question things. See links below, which are articles written in the last few hours.
Winning party: lay Republicans at 2.04 Republican nominee: lay Trump at 1.07 Nominee combo: lay Trump/Biden at 1.20 Next President: lay Trump at 2.12
I wouldn`t put anyone off taking any of these, but my favourite lay at the moment is the bottom market on this list.
I am using the winning party market. I'm far more cautious than I would otherwise be as I fear the GOP using Coronavirus as cover for a massive voter disenfranchisement push but otherwise I'm with you. Trump is fucked.
Why lay (at 2.04) on winning party market when you can lay Trump specifically (at 2.12) and have two chances of winning? You are running the risk of Trump pulling out and the Reps going on to win with a different nominee.
My terrible history of playing named individual markets. A tiny win on Boris was offset by an order of magnitude larger failure on Starmer.
"Bet on the team not the players" is my motto in sports betting and I have vowed to apply it to political betting as well.
So laying Trump is probably a far better option but to be honest I don't see a situation where the GOPs chance improve by Trump stepping aside. The chaos and confusion it would cause would be detrimental to overall party unity.
So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
So we print cash.
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern Europe
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
The world collectively seems to be in lots of debt, but who is the debt owed to ? What would happen if it was just cancelled collectively by the EU, USA, Japan and ourselves ? Is China in debt ?
There's no need, the debt from this whole crisis wilo be monetised and the government is set to pay itself the interest. The government currently owns around 25% of it's own bonds for which it pays a net rate of 0% interest. That figure is about to go up to 37%. Around £1.2tn of our existing debt pile is interest bearing to non-government holders, that figure isn't going to change. Our "true" debt ratio is about 55% that will rise as the economy contracts and fall as it grows, but we aren't ultimately adding any new interest bearing debt.
It's why the markets are willing to accept an eyewatering debt ratio of over 100% in nominal terms for the UK.
When you borrow large amounts of money from yourself at 0% interest rates two questions arise: What could possibly go wrong? and Why is this not OK if a Labour government does it?
If a thing sounds like a perpetual motion machine to the uneducated mind is it possible that in fact it is?
There's a difference between doing it during a crisis in extremis and only as long as conditions remain favourable with low inflation - and doing it on a daily basis for day to day expenditure.
That's like saying if it's ok to get a mortgage to pay for a home then why not borrow for that foreign holiday that you can't afford?
The 2008/2009 GFC was a crisis - inflation was also low.
Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* people
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
The government have to be kept on their toes, Charles. We don't want complacency setting in until the virus is beaten. Once it's beaten, that's the time for complacency. Very much looking forward to it too, I have to say.
I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
This is the calm before the storm. Furlough is fantastically expensive as it is, but wait until it gives way to mass unemployment.
A lot of the jobs that are being kept on life support right now will not be revived. Much of the leisure and hospitality industry is liable to be wiped out because it will take such a very long time before it can be reopened, and who knows how long after that before the customers can be enticed to return. The shops should open sooner, but physical retail will shrivel anyway until the sales of the surviving outlets match remaining consumer demand which, needless to say, is likely to be low.
That's an awful lot of new universal credit claimants to be propped up by a rapidly shrinking tax base - and that's before taking into account the eventual tsunami wave of mortgage repossessions and evictions from rental properties alike. Is the Government going to tolerate an enormous increase in rough sleeping? And even if it does, families with children will have to be accommodated somewhere, regardless of the additional costs.
The Government is going to end up being forced to hose this crisis down with sums of money that would've made John McDonnell blush.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
Charge a tenner to visit A&E, refundable if you are under the drink drive limit and clean of illegal drugs
The world collectively seems to be in lots of debt, but who is the debt owed to ? What would happen if it was just cancelled collectively by the EU, USA, Japan and ourselves ? Is China in debt ?
There's no need, the debt from this whole crisis wilo be monetised and the government is set to pay itself the interest. The government currently owns around 25% of it's own bonds for which it pays a net rate of 0% interest. That figure is about to go up to 37%. Around £1.2tn of our existing debt pile is interest bearing to non-government holders, that figure isn't going to change. Our "true" debt ratio is about 55% that will rise as the economy contracts and fall as it grows, but we aren't ultimately adding any new interest bearing debt.
It's why the markets are willing to accept an eyewatering debt ratio of over 100% in nominal terms for the UK.
When you borrow large amounts of money from yourself at 0% interest rates two questions arise: What could possibly go wrong? and Why is this not OK if a Labour government does it?
If a thing sounds like a perpetual motion machine to the uneducated mind is it possible that in fact it is?
There's a difference between doing it during a crisis in extremis and only as long as conditions remain favourable with low inflation - and doing it on a daily basis for day to day expenditure.
That's like saying if it's ok to get a mortgage to pay for a home then why not borrow for that foreign holiday that you can't afford?
The 2008/2009 GFC was a crisis - inflation was also low.
Oh of course it was and it was right to run a deficit and have Quantitive Easing during the crisis. However the crisis wasn't still going in 2010 when Darling still didn't want to tackle the deficit let alone 2013, 2014 or later when Labour still didn't want to tackle it, or 2015 or later.
2020 is the year of the crisis. Within a couple of years if we still have a structural deficit we will need to address it as we needed to in 2010. Thankfully we're going into 2020 in better shape than we went into 2008.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
Charge a tenner to visit A&E, refundable if you are under the drink drive limit and clean of illegal drugs
You think the NHS want to handle something as dirty as money - it's beneath their dignity level.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?
I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
This is the calm before the storm. Furlough is fantastically expensive as it is, but wait until it gives way to mass unemployment.
A lot of the jobs that are being kept on life support right now will not be revived. Much of the leisure and hospitality industry is liable to be wiped out because it will take such a very long time before it can be reopened, and who knows how long after that before the customers can be enticed to return. The shops should open sooner, but physical retail will shrivel anyway until the sales of the surviving outlets match remaining consumer demand which, needless to say, is likely to be low.
That's an awful lot of new universal credit claimants to be propped up by a rapidly shrinking tax base - and that's before taking into account the eventual tsunami wave of mortgage repossessions and evictions from rental properties alike. Is the Government going to tolerate an enormous increase in rough sleeping? And even if it does, families with children will have to be accommodated somewhere, regardless of the additional costs.
The Government is going to end up being forced to hose this crisis down with sums of money that would've made John McDonnell blush.
Mass unemployment is cheaper - have you seen how little you get on universal credit?
I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
Yes, to your first point.
Not even at a reduced rate. Make pension income NI-able. NI is a tax like any other now.
So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
So we print cash.
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern Europe
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.
The idea that even the poorest should have to pay income tax due to some moral need for all to contribute is a bit weird. Everyone pays VAT and other universal taxes already.
The poor may pay less VAT because more of what they spend money on is exempt from it. But when they do it is highly regressive because that is the nature of any sales tax.
The argument is that everyone should contribute because it avoids (a) the free rider problem; and (b) it makes for better accountability. But it is the same argument - in reverse - as that made by some rich people: I don’t use these services so why should I pay for them. I don’t have much truck with that. But if universality is important then there is an argument that it should apply to all citizens. That is the argument behind having universal welfare benefits after all. If these are available to all, people will be more willing to pay for them. If they are only available to a few then those who pay may be less willing to pay for them. This problem is already seen in the US and could come here if we’re not careful.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
What is this fabled "Air Passenger" of which you speak.
Another giant hole in the revenues tream of Govt. for the foreseeable.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.
So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
So we print cash.
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern Europe
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?
Not at all. We'd have had the usual 23 or so around the table. But alas ...
Fell into a right miserable funk on Wednesday and it shows no sign of lifting on what is now day 45 in the cage. Management meeting this lunchtime just reinforces the misery - CEO looking at options to start resuming "normal" in June maybe.
So a best best case of me leaving the hamster cage by day 76 though if "normal" is the split shifts we ran for all of a week and a half I'm not getting out of here until day 90. So this is maybe half distance possibly.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.
Shame, would have been an improvement.
First rule of low level political zingery, spell the name of your opponents correctly if you're gonnae do wan on them.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.
He would raise the capability of it. His Houses have done more to help those who need the NHS than that Shadow Cabinet ever did.
So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
So we print cash.
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern Europe
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
For sure that would be a much better solution
If you are interested, my EvulMasterplan looks like this
1) Abolish the tax free allowance for income tax and NI. 2) UBI of the former basic rate of tax paid by the government, monthly, directly to a specified account. 3) Automatic assumed payment of minimum NI included in that. 4) UBI can never be taxed, withdrawn etc. Everyone gets it 5) All earrings above UBI are taxed. 6) Additional benefits for disability etc. But these should be rare.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?
One of the key elements that people overlook on taxes is are they cost efficient and easy to collect accurately ...
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.
I confess I didn't. But "well written" always helps.
On the thread header, Cyclefree’s question ‘why should a spouse have exemption from inheritance tax but not the children?’ is very easily answered. It’s a way of more or less guaranteeing that the house doesn’t have to be sold, because spouses are somewhat more likely to be living in them than children.
Because again, houses are totemic, particularly at a time of grief. Theresa May can explain this to you...
The same applies if you have children living in them. But that does not stop IHT being levied when a parent dies.
It is easy to find reasons why something or someone should NOT be taxed. But if the money is needed - and it will be - you need to find it from somewhere. So you need to question your previous assumptions, provocative and difficult as that may be.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
There's no point in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good re carbon taxes. No, they won't stop the use of fossil fuels and they may not bring in a huge amount of money, but they will reduce the use of fossil fuels and the will bring in some money. They are also relatively easy to implement and have some public support. It really does seem a no-brainer to introduce them as a contribution towards protecting the environment and balancing the books.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?
One of the key elements that people overlook on taxes is are they cost efficient and easy to collect accurately ...
You seem to forget houses find it very difficult to up sticks and move abroad.
It's why property and land taxes are easy to tax as they are harder to avoid than a lot of other taxes.
These fcukers spend oodles on infra red sights and top of the range body armour but won't pay an alterations shop to take up the hems of their breeks (I'm assuming that they're too useless to do it themselves)?
Fell into a right miserable funk on Wednesday and it shows no sign of lifting on what is now day 45 in the cage. Management meeting this lunchtime just reinforces the misery - CEO looking at options to start resuming "normal" in June maybe.
So a best best case of me leaving the hamster cage by day 76 though if "normal" is the split shifts we ran for all of a week and a half I'm not getting out of here until day 90. So this is maybe half distance possibly.
Fuck.
Although it's only been a month and half, it's been a heck of a long month and a half.... pre-lockdown seems a long long time ago.
Fell into a right miserable funk on Wednesday and it shows no sign of lifting on what is now day 45 in the cage. Management meeting this lunchtime just reinforces the misery - CEO looking at options to start resuming "normal" in June maybe.
So a best best case of me leaving the hamster cage by day 76 though if "normal" is the split shifts we ran for all of a week and a half I'm not getting out of here until day 90. So this is maybe half distance possibly.
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.
Shame, would have been an improvement.
First rule of low level political zingery, spell the name of your opponents correctly if you're gonnae do wan on them.
Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?
One of the key elements that people overlook on taxes is are they cost efficient and easy to collect accurately ...
You seem to forget houses find it very difficult to up sticks and move abroad.
It's why property and land taxes are easy to tax as they are harder to avoid than a lot of other taxes.
Sure - but dig out 2 levels of basement, add an extension and spend thousands on renovations and your house is worth not a penny more in current tax world.
You then pay the same as your neighbour who hasn't redecorated or improved and has an asset worth half yours.
So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
So we print cash.
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern Europe
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
For sure that would be a much better solution
If you are interested, my EvulMasterplan looks like this
1) Abolish the tax free allowance for income tax and NI. 2) UBI of the former basic rate of tax paid by the government, monthly, directly to a specified account. 3) Automatic assumed payment of minimum NI included in that. 4) UBI can never be taxed, withdrawn etc. Everyone gets it 5) All earrings above UBI are taxed. 6) Additional benefits for disability etc. But these should be rare.
Sounds nice and simple solution , what would they do with all the parasitic lawyers and accountants that do the tax evasion though.
I agree with the @SouthamObserver suggestion of scrapping Trident to pay for Covid. Safe to support Jezza’s policies now he’s gone!
I would also like Trident to be scrapped, but I think the resulting savings should be allocated to conventional forces/armaments.
Personally, I would do the following: -Scrap HS2. Try to find an inexpensive outcome that makes some sense out of what has been done so far. -Increase digital tax, per transaction. For the most part these companies have had it bloody good over corona and can afford it. They will likely respond by increasing their prices to UK consumers, but that, whilst not desirable, will at least help the physical retail sector. -Create a fuel-duty stabiliser. In low fuel-price times it rises as a percentage. In high fuel price times it takes a smaller percentage. In these times, it would support the exchequer by increasing the fuel duty take at this time
So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
So we print cash.
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern Europe
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
For sure that would be a much better solution
If you are interested, my EvulMasterplan looks like this
1) Abolish the tax free allowance for income tax and NI. 2) UBI of the former basic rate of tax paid by the government, monthly, directly to a specified account. 3) Automatic assumed payment of minimum NI included in that. 4) UBI can never be taxed, withdrawn etc. Everyone gets it 5) All earrings above UBI are taxed. 6) Additional benefits for disability etc. But these should be rare.
Sounds nice and simple solution , what would they do with all the parasitic lawyers and accountants that do the tax evasion though.
These fcukers spend oodles on infra red sights and top of the range body armour but won't pay an alterations shop to take up the hems of their breeks (I'm assuming that they're too useless to do it themselves)?
Comments
https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/statement-by-vice-president-joe-biden-7a9593bd3012
I think he's much better at this stuff than Hillary: He's coming at it straight on and it's clear what his defence is. When she was dealing with Her Emails she just kind of let it rumble on and tried to change the subject and point people to her website, which worked well in the debates but never put it to rest, then the Comey thing blew it back up at just the wrong time.
I do not trust vague blather from politicians.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
And the drugs would still be unregulated. Prohibition does not work.
Legalise it, regulate it, tax it while targeting police resources (and revenue resources) at criminal gangs and it would be cheaper, healthier and safer to buy the legal version in the shop for most people than it would to buy the unregulated, illegal, untaxed version from the gangs.
Also the drugs you named are not legal ones you can buy over the counter like alcohol or tobacco or ibuprofen.
Are there people as lucid and coherent at 75 as they were at 34?
On IHT, my initial reaction is that spouses do need the exemption. How do you disentangle each spouse's contribution to joint assets, such as their principal residence? Who you evict the surviving spouse who is property rich and cash poor? How would you deal with the spouse who stopped working to bring up the family to enable the other spouse to build the business that created the family's wealth?
But, in principle, I agree. We need to be open to rethinking all our assumptions on government and taxation.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
More to the point, when you watch Trump now, it's very clear that there's something wrong with him beyond a weak memory or whatever.
Between the legal and illegal cost of supply is a huge gap. This applies to all drugs. So it would be perfectly possible to have a legal product that was
1) Cheaper
2) Involved a hefty tax payment
The only issue would be to make sure that 2) doesn't break 1)
This is an issue already in the US, in some places that have legalised marijuana.
Most drug use is sensible, recreational and non-harmful. We should encourage sensible, recreational use. With support services for those who need it.
Stop spending huge amounts globally trying to stop the drug trade. It doesn't work.
I have personal experience of living with an alcoholic and I know of what I speak in relation to drugs. From my view alcoholism is generally much more damaging to those who abuse it and those around them.
There should be proper support for drug addicts of all description, be they legal or illegal drugs.
David Singleton, 42, a senior NHS official in London who has been working at the capital’s Covid-19 Nightingale hospital, launched the business two weeks ago to trade in visors, masks and gowns.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/01/revealed-nhs-procurement-official-privately-selling-ppe
Well done Hancock. Surely one of the great politicians of our time.
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/estimate-paye-take-home-pay/your-pay
From the paper:
...For the T cells to be effective for virus control, they
must act fast before complete donor-cell rejection. In this regard, the CCS system selects functionally rather than phenotypically and preferentially enriches those T cells that can secrete
IFNγ within hours after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 specific peptides by the nature of memory recall response. In contrast, de novo alloreactivity takes several days to develop, and could be longer in severely lymphopenic patients with severe COVID-19. Phenotypically, the CCS isolated cells are enriched for CD56+ T cells, CD4+ TEM cells, and CD8+ TEM and TEMRA cells, all of which are known to have potent and rapid pathogen response (thus captured preferentially by CCS)
For pandemics caused by novel pathogens, development of specific vaccines for active immunization takes time; however, passive immunity can be acquired immediately via blood component transfusion from recovered patients. In this regard, promising preliminary data have been reported on the use of plasmatherapy forCOVID-19. Conceivably, our adoptiveT-cell therapy approach can be easily combined with plasma infusion from the same donor or different donor. T cells are a “living drug” and can expand in vivo, which is in contrast pharmacokinetically to antibody, of which the level universally drops after infusion because of consumption or natural metabolism. Accordingly, a unit of donor’s blood may potentially treat more patients and the therapeutic effects of T cells may be more durable than that of plasma therapy. For a dose of 5x103 SARS-CoV-2 T cells/kg, the cells from the donor with mild symptoms could provide sufficient cells for 3 adult recipients; correspondingly, the donor with severe symptoms could potentially benefit as many as 6 recipients. Pharmacodynamically, SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells may be used alone or synergistically with plasma therapy to establish immediately an adaptive immune status mimicking that after successful vaccination. Under the protection of adaptive immunity, the body will not depend solely on innate immune the CCS system)...
That policy might make some money.
Nowhere near as much as the untold billions he's blown trying to protect healthy people from getting a disease that doesn't threaten them, of course, but something.
The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0311-8
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alongside investigations into the virology of SARS-CoV-2, understanding the fundamental physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Here, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression. From nascent reports describing SARS-CoV-2, we make inferences on the basis of the parallel pathophysiological and immunological features of the other human coronaviruses targeting the lower respiratory tract — severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Finally, we highlight the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation...
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
https://unherd.com/2020/05/does-fortune-favour-boris/
Almost as if they wanted to say something extra but couldn't - like "We don't want there to be more tests".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/31/matt-cartoons-april-2020/matt-cartoon-april-29/
Under 1,000.
60 and under? 250.
According to NHS England.
Its a disease that targets the vulnerable old. We have known that for a while
"Bet on the team not the players" is my motto in sports betting and I have vowed to apply it to political betting as well.
So laying Trump is probably a far better option but to be honest I don't see a situation where the GOPs chance improve by Trump stepping aside. The chaos and confusion it would cause would be detrimental to overall party unity.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
A lot of the jobs that are being kept on life support right now will not be revived. Much of the leisure and hospitality industry is liable to be wiped out because it will take such a very long time before it can be reopened, and who knows how long after that before the customers can be enticed to return. The shops should open sooner, but physical retail will shrivel anyway until the sales of the surviving outlets match remaining consumer demand which, needless to say, is likely to be low.
That's an awful lot of new universal credit claimants to be propped up by a rapidly shrinking tax base - and that's before taking into account the eventual tsunami wave of mortgage repossessions and evictions from rental properties alike. Is the Government going to tolerate an enormous increase in rough sleeping? And even if it does, families with children will have to be accommodated somewhere, regardless of the additional costs.
The Government is going to end up being forced to hose this crisis down with sums of money that would've made John McDonnell blush.
2020 is the year of the crisis. Within a couple of years if we still have a structural deficit we will need to address it as we needed to in 2010. Thankfully we're going into 2020 in better shape than we went into 2008.
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
The argument is that everyone should contribute because it avoids (a) the free rider problem; and (b) it makes for better accountability. But it is the same argument - in reverse - as that made by some rich people: I don’t use these services so why should I pay for them. I don’t have much truck with that. But if universality is important then there is an argument that it should apply to all citizens. That is the argument behind having universal welfare benefits after all. If these are available to all, people will be more willing to pay for them. If they are only available to a few then those who pay may be less willing to pay for them. This problem is already seen in the US and could come here if we’re not careful.
Another giant hole in the revenues tream of Govt. for the foreseeable.
So a best best case of me leaving the hamster cage by day 76 though if "normal" is the split shifts we ran for all of a week and a half I'm not getting out of here until day 90. So this is maybe half distance possibly.
Fuck.
https://twitter.com/cluedont/status/1256198650096693248
1) Abolish the tax free allowance for income tax and NI.
2) UBI of the former basic rate of tax paid by the government, monthly, directly to a specified account.
3) Automatic assumed payment of minimum NI included in that.
4) UBI can never be taxed, withdrawn etc. Everyone gets it
5) All earrings above UBI are taxed.
6) Additional benefits for disability etc. But these should be rare.
This is quite well written too -
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/march2019
Don't you think?
It is easy to find reasons why something or someone should NOT be taxed. But if the money is needed - and it will be - you need to find it from somewhere. So you need to question your previous assumptions, provocative and difficult as that may be.
It's why property and land taxes are easy to tax as they are harder to avoid than a lot of other taxes.
https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1256184749351190528?s=20
You then pay the same as your neighbour who hasn't redecorated or improved and has an asset worth half yours.
https://twitter.com/alistairhaimes/status/1256206406769881088?s=21
Personally, I would do the following:
-Scrap HS2. Try to find an inexpensive outcome that makes some sense out of what has been done so far.
-Increase digital tax, per transaction. For the most part these companies have had it bloody good over corona and can afford it. They will likely respond by increasing their prices to UK consumers, but that, whilst not desirable, will at least help the physical retail sector.
-Create a fuel-duty stabiliser. In low fuel-price times it rises as a percentage. In high fuel price times it takes a smaller percentage. In these times, it would support the exchequer by increasing the fuel duty take at this time
Suspect this will be over sooner than thought bar the odd outbreak.