Applying the 2020 heuristic, I am expecting that Trump gives it to Biden, Biden croaks, Trump recovers and beats Harris in the EC after losing the PV by 5 percentage points when the Supreme Court decides that postal votes need to stop being counted in Pennsylvania just before Harris pulls ahead, in a 5-4 decision where Barrett tips the balance in his favour.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Surely he doesn't get to pick before January, the ticket is already Trump/Pence and then the VP pick would need to go through a senate confirmation hearing.
Does Biden have it?
Ford was confirmed as VP by 92 to 3 in the Senate and 387 to 35 in the House. That was with Watergate very much ongoing and a very realistic prospect they were confirming the next President. It was also with a heavily Democratic Senate (56/42) and House (241/192).
It is true we live in more partisan times, but I do think if this were to occur then Pence's choice would go through smoothly and quickly.
If the Trump/Pence ticket is elected but the man at the top of the ballot doesn't make it (still pretty unlikely in actuarial terms - he's fairly old and fat but reasonably robust and with access to the best care) then Pence would have a lot of leeway. It's not like Supreme Court confirmation where there is an argument about legal qualification, compliance with all laws, and fundamental conflicts making it impossible to decide key cases fairly many years after the President has gone. VP is a political position up to the next election and it would, in practice, be a very senior Republican of Pence's choosing - it doesn't matter whether Pelosi personally likes him or her.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
Which living former Presidents would go to Trump's state funeral? My guess is Jimmy Carter and George W Bush only, though the Clintons and Obamas would obviously go to Biden's state funeral along with Carter and Bush. Melania would put on her best Jackie Kennedy grieving widow act, then buy a huge mansion for Barron and herself in Palm Beach and seek a new billionaire to marry.
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
All of them because it would be the appropriate thing to do and the Clintons and Obamas would want to ensure they were above such petty items.
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
To find the maximum point on the Laffer curve the condition is that the elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate is equal to one. Your sense is therefore that said elasticity <1. Others think >1. Since governments often try to tune the rate to get epsilon = 1, I would guess it is somewhere in that ballpark, meaning there is likely to be little scope for easy revenue raising just by putting up tax rates.
But there is more than one Laffer curve because (some privileged) people can choose whether their income is liable to Income Tax or Corporation Tax, or even Capital Gains Tax, as it suits them. I would welcome the synchronisation of these different taxes, i.e. same thresholds, same rates, to stop the egregious gaming of the system.
I agree with that, but it just reinforces the point that for the rich the elasticity of the tax base wrt the tax rate is much greater than one. Targeting the rich for revenue is a fool's errand.
edit: MorrisDancer makes the point eloquently enough.
A wealth tax is what we need.
What you need perhaps! On your bike! (Sorry, a bit tongue in cheek. I don't think wealth taxes are a great idea. I do think that inheritance tax could be higher.)
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
To find the maximum point on the Laffer curve the condition is that the elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate is equal to one. Your sense is therefore that said elasticity <1. Others think >1. Since governments often try to tune the rate to get epsilon = 1, I would guess it is somewhere in that ballpark, meaning there is likely to be little scope for easy revenue raising just by putting up tax rates.
But there is more than one Laffer curve because (some privileged) people can choose whether their income is liable to Income Tax or Corporation Tax, or even Capital Gains Tax, as it suits them. I would welcome the synchronisation of these different taxes, i.e. same thresholds, same rates, to stop the egregious gaming of the system.
I agree with that, but it just reinforces the point that for the rich the elasticity of the tax base wrt the tax rate is much greater than one. Targeting the rich for revenue is a fool's errand.
edit: MorrisDancer makes the point eloquently enough.
A wealth tax is what we need.
Unless it falls on the immovable assets (i.e. housing) form of wealth it will be prone to large scale avoidance in the same way as iht. Many forms of capital are moveable, fungible and protean. Getting the tax authorities to pin it down so as to maximise revenue is a big ask.
2171 new cases in NI, Scotland and Wales today. At that rate there would be nearly 11,000 cases in England. I wonder how much notice the London media will pay to Johnson apparently controlling the virus more effectively in England than the leaders of the devolved administrations?
Or it could be a feature of different "track and trace" systems being more efficient than others at tracking and tracing more positive cases?
But, but, but the English one is 'world-beating', was designed to be so and is working as planned.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
Which living former Presidents would go to Trump's state funeral? My guess is Jimmy Carter and George W Bush only, though the Clintons and Obamas would obviously go to Biden's state funeral along with Carter and Bush. Melania would put on her best Jackie Kennedy grieving widow act, then buy a huge mansion for Barron and herself in Palm Beach and seek a new billionaire to marry.
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
I'd hope that, even if they despised him, Clinton and Obama would go to Trumps' funeral. Because it's the classy thing to do.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
I`d back Trump against Johnson in a fist fight. Despite his small hands. 4/6 Trump 6/4 Johnson.
I think I would too. Johnson has the muscly torso but he strikes me as a bit of a show pony.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
Which living former Presidents would go to Trump's state funeral? My guess is Jimmy Carter and George W Bush only, though the Clintons and Obamas would obviously go to Biden's state funeral along with Carter and Bush. Melania would put on her best Jackie Kennedy grieving widow act, then buy a huge mansion for Barron and herself in Palm Beach and seek a new billionaire to marry.
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
All of the former POTUS would go.
Evens on whether Clinton or Obama get to dance on the grave first.
I'm not one to minimise the risks of Covid at all, but to be fair the same phrases have been used (or could have been used) about the many people who have in fact had mild cases of the illness.
It is true that they can't be taken as meaning Trump won't deteriorate. But equally, they are shouldn't be taken as meaning he will.
People want him dead, don't be a fun sponge
I am happy to say that I am wholeheartedly in favour of *anything at all* which prevents Trump from winning a second term.
Anyway, I suspect medical euphemism is a country-specific thing and we can't make equivalences between what they say about Trump and what they said about Boris.
2171 new cases in NI, Scotland and Wales today. At that rate there would be nearly 11,000 cases in England. I wonder how much notice the London media will pay to Johnson apparently controlling the virus more effectively in England than the leaders of the devolved administrations?
Or it could be a feature of different "track and trace" systems being more efficient than others at tracking and tracing more positive cases?
If a track and trace system is more effective then you'd expect over time that to lead to fewer cases, because it would reduce transmission of the virus.
That doesn't seem to be happening here, unless the better system is in England.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
No way, can't get them on the ticket now anyway. Better to get them through either a lame duck session for the GOP or go for senate confirmation for the Dems. Announcing now before the election will just put voters off.
Surely if necessary they could be announced now and ECVs could be transferred to the proposed candidate if they win?
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
Boris is a lot younger, but he was quite a lot fatter and he drinks. Boris was hospitalised on day 10 after the test, then in ICU on days 11-14.
Age is a much stronger risk factor than anything else, and Trump is two decades older than Johnson. I don't think anyone has shown alcohol as a risk factor.
Mortality has dropped more at the older age ranges from March.
' I don't think anyone has shown alcohol as a risk factor.'
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
Which living former Presidents would go to Trump's state funeral? My guess is Jimmy Carter and George W Bush only, though the Clintons and Obamas would obviously go to Biden's state funeral along with Carter and Bush. Melania would put on her best Jackie Kennedy grieving widow act, then buy a huge mansion for Barron and herself in Palm Beach and seek a new billionaire to marry.
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
A very morbid subject and let's hope not. But I am absolutely sure Carter (if well enough - he's 96 now), Bush, Clinton and Obama would all go to the funeral of either candidate.
In the case of Biden, respect for the man. In the case of Trump, respect for the office.
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad - - - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were right
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
Which is why diseases such as typhoid, measles, polio, smallpox, and so on remain such a problem and have never been brought under control.
Seriously, that entire worldview is laughable - that strange and inexplicable phenomena govern our world like the effects of capricious gods.
Is this some strange trolling or joke?
Someone called Semmelweiss made some rather important discoveries in the 1800s. Something called the Germ Theory of Disease came along. And one of the bigger steps in changing behaviours in order to control disease outbreaks was carried out by someone called Florence Nightingale (you may have heard of her) who produced excellent data visualisations to convince some decision-makers of the way to deal with disease outbreaks in hospitals.
That a good point but there's a distinction. Those diseases were largely brought under control not by human behaviour but by human treatments. By real science. People were not ordered to dramatically alter their day to day behaviour, surrender their liberty or give up their businesses.
And other viruses. such as influenza, still kill. Right now, more than COVID.
Polio outbreaks regularly saw American towns/regions put under lockdown and quarantined.
That behaviour did not stop polio. The vaccines against it did. Those lockdowns might still be there if real science had not intervened.
Your argument makes no sense at all.
Yes effective vaccines are the what we are aiming for. We do not yet have vaccines. We need to use science reduce the infection rates now. That includes using lockdown policies if and when things get out of hand. There is science behind quarrantining as well as just vaccines.
Yes. Quarantines, sterilisation of tools and items, handwashing, keeping ones distance, tracing infected individuals (eg Typhoid Mary), cleaning hospitals, and many other methods can and have been used for various diseases and outbreaks over the centuries in the absence of vaccinations.
Yes and how did those work out?
In the 14 th century people had never been more spread out or less travelled. People had not idea what caused the black death but they knew that human contact was bad. Plenty of distancing then eh?
Result? wipe out of up to sixty per cent of the population of Europe.
What was the rate of mortality as people did summersaults to avoid each other down the centuries. Absolutely terrible until real, science based treatments came in such as vaccines and anti-biotics.
Professor Gupta's whole point is that enforced or even voluntary changes in human behaviour at best only delay the inevitable at an enormous residual cost (beyond a possible six week initial lockdown phase). The virus finds a way.
Its almost as if there a mass of evidence that changes in human behaviour a are really crap way of controlling disease. Something that is becoming more obvious by the day.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
I`d back Trump against Johnson in a fist fight. Despite his small hands. 4/6 Trump 6/4 Johnson.
I think I would too. Johnson has the muscly torso but he strikes me as a bit of a show pony.
Philip would back Johnson wouldn`t he? Given his previous comparisons with a certain beefy actor?
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
To find the maximum point on the Laffer curve the condition is that the elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate is equal to one. Your sense is therefore that said elasticity <1. Others think >1. Since governments often try to tune the rate to get epsilon = 1, I would guess it is somewhere in that ballpark, meaning there is likely to be little scope for easy revenue raising just by putting up tax rates.
But there is more than one Laffer curve because (some privileged) people can choose whether their income is liable to Income Tax or Corporation Tax, or even Capital Gains Tax, as it suits them. I would welcome the synchronisation of these different taxes, i.e. same thresholds, same rates, to stop the egregious gaming of the system.
I agree with that, but it just reinforces the point that for the rich the elasticity of the tax base wrt the tax rate is much greater than one. Targeting the rich for revenue is a fool's errand.
edit: MorrisDancer makes the point eloquently enough.
A wealth tax is what we need.
Unless it falls on the immovable assets (i.e. housing) form of wealth it will be prone to large scale avoidance in the same way as iht. Many forms of capital are moveable, fungible and protean. Getting the tax authorities to pin it down so as to maximise revenue is a big ask.
Agree with all of that. It's not easy.
But still, the latest estimate of UK net worth is what £10,000,000,000,000 (10 trillion) plus?
1% of that a year transforms public finances.
UK citizenship and residency have to be made dependent on coughing up your share.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%; it's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taking wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
I`m not sure whether Starmer is proposing a new 50% tax rate, or whether he would increase the current 45% to 50%.
Either way, I`m not opposed to this in principle. Won`t be much use in repairing the nation`s finances though, as long as we can all agree on that.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
Germany has the same top rate of income tax as we do and Sweden has no IHT.
TSE, LadyG, Charles, Alistair Meeks to name but 4 are all or were comfortably in the top 5% of earners certainly and spend plenty of time posting on here
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
Which living former Presidents would go to Trump's state funeral? My guess is Jimmy Carter and George W Bush only, though the Clintons and Obamas would obviously go to Biden's state funeral along with Carter and Bush. Melania would put on her best Jackie Kennedy grieving widow act, then buy a huge mansion for Barron and herself in Palm Beach and seek a new billionaire to marry.
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
A very morbid subject and let's hope not. But I am absolutely sure Carter (if well enough - he's 96 now), Bush, Clinton and Obama would all go to the funeral of either candidate.
In the case of Biden, respect for the man. In the case of Trump, respect for the office.
Maybe though I always think it is a bit false to attend the funeral of a person you despised when they were alive and the family of the deceased know it
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
Laffer is total unprovable, unparameterisable* fiction, of course.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
What would you be trying to achieve through this tax raise?
If it's more tax income then it won't work. If it's greater equality then it won't work.
Raising the top rate tax rate therefore has no sensible reason behind it.
By some other means, increasing the tax load on the richest may or may not be a wise thing to do. My hunch is that we're in about the right place. As I posted a few minutes ago I think inheritance tax is quite low, and I also think it's a tax that isn't so bad to raise. (Admittedly I hate the effect that it has on big houses etc. We're already well down that path anyway - nobody lives in the substantial Victorian houses of central London)
I have always found it strange that for somebody with a yuuuhe reputation for being a germophobe, Trump has spent 6 months putting himself in risky situations time and time again e.g. the press conferences with 20-30 people all huddled up, the rallies, the visits to factories and unwillingness to wear a mask.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
Laffer is total unprovable, unparameterisable* fiction, of course.
(*If that's even a word)
Laffer is only "unprovable" to a socialist in the same way as evolution is "unprovable" to a creationist.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
Germany has the same top rate of income tax as we do and Sweden has no IHT.
TSE, LadyG, Charles, Alistair Meeks to name but 4 are all or were comfortably in the top 5% of earners certainly and spend plenty of time posting on here
I'm minted but I'm happy to pay more tax. I also waste too much time on here.
= "We're going to cave-in but we'll never admit it."
I really do not care as long as a deal is agreed
Probably why you and I would make poor negotiators. If they do cave in that may well be worth criticising if they are particularly shameless about it - everyone sells their side afterwards, I don't begrudge that - but it will be weird if, once again, we were told they actually wanted no deal and they prove otherwise by doing one. Even if that is a substandard deal which they caved in to get, if they get one it would once again show that the idea particular people involved wanted no deal would be wrong.
But I won't count chickens on this one until they hatch.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
I`d back Trump against Johnson in a fist fight. Despite his small hands. 4/6 Trump 6/4 Johnson.
I think I would too. Johnson has the muscly torso but he strikes me as a bit of a show pony.
Trump would have no hesitation about going dirty. Johnson only would if he thought he could do it without anyone seeing him.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
Which living former Presidents would go to Trump's state funeral? My guess is Jimmy Carter and George W Bush only, though the Clintons and Obamas would obviously go to Biden's state funeral along with Carter and Bush. Melania would put on her best Jackie Kennedy grieving widow act, then buy a huge mansion for Barron and herself in Palm Beach and seek a new billionaire to marry.
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
A very morbid subject and let's hope not. But I am absolutely sure Carter (if well enough - he's 96 now), Bush, Clinton and Obama would all go to the funeral of either candidate.
In the case of Biden, respect for the man. In the case of Trump, respect for the office.
Maybe though I always think it is a bit false to attend the funeral of a person you despised when they were alive and the family of the deceased know it
If the deceased person held, and especially if they were still holding, public office, then they have to be accorded some respect. I wouldn't necessarily stay for the drinks afterwards, though.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
What would you be trying to achieve through this tax raise?
If it's more tax income then it won't work. If it's greater equality then it won't work.
Raising the top rate tax rate therefore has no sensible reason behind it.
By some other means, increasing the tax load on the richest may or may not be a wise thing to do. My hunch is that we're in about the right place. As I posted a few minutes ago I think inheritance tax is quite low, and I also think it's a tax that isn't so bad to raise. (Admittedly I hate the effect that it has on big houses etc. We're already well down that path anyway - nobody lives in the substantial Victorian houses of central London)
Well, I tend to think that raising income tax will, er, raise the amount of money raised through income tax. I've always thought Laffer was just a spurious justification for not taxing the rich too much. Certainly when I was working on a decent salary I would have happily paid two or three hundred more a month to fund better public services. I would still have had plenty of money for a good lifestyle. My income probably just crept in to the top 5%, so nothing special.
But I made it clear that I don't regard income tax as the solution to all our problems, and I agree with you on the potential for IHT rises.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
I`d back Trump against Johnson in a fist fight. Despite his small hands. 4/6 Trump 6/4 Johnson.
I think I would too. Johnson has the muscly torso but he strikes me as a bit of a show pony.
Trump would have no hesitation about going dirty. Johnson only would if he thought he could do it without anyone seeing him.
There's also the determination factor. Trump is absurdly self confident and would find a way to insist he had won the contest even if Boris punched him so hard his jaw separated from his skull. I'm not sure Boris could take the hits.
Pass - I was hoping he was at King's College Durham but given what happened in clearing regarding accommodation I suspect it wouldn't make much difference (some one we know at Newcastle Uni is sharing with 5 Northumbria students).
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
But the devolved administrations are doing such a better job than England . . .
Time will tell. At the moment the hospitalisation figures suggest that a disproportionately large percentage of total Covid patients are in Wales and a correspondingly low percentage are to be found in Scottish hospitals. England and Northern Ireland are both close to population-proportionate shares of the total number.
= "We're going to cave-in but we'll never admit it."
I really do not care as long as a deal is agreed
Probably why you and I would make poor negotiators. If they do cave in that may well be worth criticising if they are particularly shameless about it - everyone sells their side afterwards, I don't begrudge that - but it will be weird if, once again, we were told they actually wanted no deal and they prove otherwise by doing one. Even if that is a substandard deal which they caved in to get, if they get one it would once again show that the idea particular people involved wanted no deal would be wrong.
But I won't count chickens on this one until they hatch.
The point was made earlier. Ursula van der Leyen and supporting staff will explain something to Boris, and be nice to him. Frost will desperately try to stop but Boris will be flattered and sign.
After Christmas Boris will realise he's been thoroughly shafted, but there's his signature at the bottom of the document!
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
Pass - I was hoping he was at King's College Durham but given what happened in clearing regarding accommodation I suspect it wouldn't make much difference (some one we know at Newcastle Uni is sharing with 5 Northumbria students).
= "We're going to cave-in but we'll never admit it."
I really do not care as long as a deal is agreed
Probably why you and I would make poor negotiators. If they do cave in that may well be worth criticising if they are particularly shameless about it - everyone sells their side afterwards, I don't begrudge that - but it will be weird if, once again, we were told they actually wanted no deal and they prove otherwise by doing one. Even if that is a substandard deal which they caved in to get, if they get one it would once again show that the idea particular people involved wanted no deal would be wrong.
But I won't count chickens on this one until they hatch.
The point was made earlier. Ursula van der Leyen and supporting staff will explain something to Boris, and be nice to him. Frost will desperately try to stop but Boris will be flattered and sign.
After Christmas Boris will realise he's been thoroughly shafted, but there's his signature at the bottom of the document!
That all may be true, in fact I can believe it easily particularly since he has now already in effect admitted his last deal was no good (or, most charitably, so easily misused), but is irrelevant to the point that if he signs, for whatever reason and even if it is a bad deal and even if he realises later that is so, then it shows he did want a deal as claimed.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
Laffer is total unprovable, unparameterisable* fiction, of course.
(*If that's even a word)
Laffer Syndrome would be an accurate description. If only of the phenomenon of people thinking the curve a real thing.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
With usual caveats of reporting day data . . .
Versus 6,874 same day last week. Not exactly doubling every week.
The hospital numbers are climbing steadily upwards so there's obviously no room for complacency, but it does indeed look like we're tracking the French and Spanish outbreaks at the moment, rather than going to Hell in a handcart. Not for the time being, anyway...
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
Am I right in thinking during the first wave, NI escaped more lightly than other parts of the UK?
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
No way, can't get them on the ticket now anyway. Better to get them through either a lame duck session for the GOP or go for senate confirmation for the Dems. Announcing now before the election will just put voters off.
Don't forget it's the Electoral College members who are being elected in November in each state. Those nominations are in and done, so if one or other or both of either party's candidates dies or withdraws before election day, or rather December 15th when the Electoral College votes, it's that party's national committee who gets to decide who to replace them with on the ticket. After December 15th then the 20th Amendment specifies that if the President-elect has died, the Vice-President-elect becomes President-elect. If because of this, or because the VP-elect has died, the Vice-Presidency is vacant until the new President makes an appointment after they take up office. Per the 25th Amendment, appointment to the vacant Vice-Presidency is confirmed by a majority vote of both houses, not just the Senate.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
But that England 9 is a bit of an irrelevance. What is the figure for North of Sheffield say? I suspect higher than Scotland or Wales. This second wave is a regional outbreak.
= "We're going to cave-in but we'll never admit it."
I really do not care as long as a deal is agreed
Probably why you and I would make poor negotiators. If they do cave in that may well be worth criticising if they are particularly shameless about it - everyone sells their side afterwards, I don't begrudge that - but it will be weird if, once again, we were told they actually wanted no deal and they prove otherwise by doing one. Even if that is a substandard deal which they caved in to get, if they get one it would once again show that the idea particular people involved wanted no deal would be wrong.
But I won't count chickens on this one until they hatch.
The point was made earlier. Ursula van der Leyen and supporting staff will explain something to Boris, and be nice to him. Frost will desperately try to stop but Boris will be flattered and sign.
After Christmas Boris will realise he's been thoroughly shafted, but there's his signature at the bottom of the document!
That all may be true, in fact I can believe it easily particularly since he has now already in effect admitted his last deal was no good (or, most charitably, so easily misused), but is irrelevant to the point that if he signs, for whatever reason and even if it is a bad deal and even if he realises later that is so, then it shows he did want a deal as claimed.
Indeed; I agree with your last point, but is a bad deal better than no deal. I can't remember where we are in that cycle! If NE Scots fisherman are thrown under a bus, metaphorically speaking, that could leave Boris in trouble. Although I think on the Daily Express would care very much.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
But that England 9 is a bit of an irrelevance. What is the figure for North of Sheffield say? I suspect higher than Scotland or Wales. This second wave is a regional outbreak.
Also, as I understand it, there are fewer people per 100,000 in hospital in Scotland compared to England.
I'm shocked to see that so many well-heeled denizens of PB are against a hike in the tax rate for the top 5%. It's almost as if it might affect them. But as they'd just end up moving abroad to avoid Starmer's "punitive" tax regime we'd all suffer, as of course the tax take would go down according to somebody called Laffer. We can cite in evidence all the rich running away from the punitive income tax regimes in Sweden and Germany. Or can we?
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
Laffer is total unprovable, unparameterisable* fiction, of course.
(*If that's even a word)
Laffer Syndrome would be an accurate description. If only of the phenomenon of people thinking the curve a real thing.
A syndrome that seems only to afflict higher earners.
At no point did I suggest anything that could be construed as an argument for the rich paying lower tax rates than other people.
You're more concerned with punitive taxation to hit individuals. I'm more concerned with maximising the tax take, which may occur with tax rates being higher or lower. If you squeeze the rich so they dodge the tax or just leave the country then there's a shortfall in revenues which principally affects the poorest, either through inferior funding for service provision or through rising taxes (or both).
It's exactly what you wrote. Go back and check. As to the rest, there may or may not be scope to raise revenue via a wealth tax and higher income tax rates on middle and (especially) high earners. I say I hope there is. You say you think there isn't. But neither of us has a clue. Let's not pretend we do, citing "Laffer Curve" nonsense. Fact is, we pick the answer which suits our political leanings. But given you are elevating your own virtuous motives and at the same time telling me what my misguided drivers are, let me return the compliment by doing the reverse. I'm concerned with raising tax revenue in a way that balances efficiency and fiscal justice. You are parroting softhead Daily Telegraph platitudes.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
With usual caveats of reporting day data . . .
Versus 6,874 same day last week. Not exactly doubling every week.
It doubled in a day - in Northern Ireland. The figure for England is surely down on a week ago.
Relative to last Friday, cases confirmed by test are down in England and up elsewhere. However, hospitalisations are still tracking upwards in all four nations.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
Am I right in thinking during the first wave, NI escaped more lightly than other parts of the UK?
No one who believes in the Laffer curve also believes we are on the left hand side.
Incidentally Laffer is a crank these days.
Not true, we can be on the left sometimes and the right other times.
It only generally gets brought up when the person bringing it up thinks we're on the right . . . that doesn't mean we're always on the right, since it doesn't always get brought up.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
Am I right in thinking during the first wave, NI escaped more lightly than other parts of the UK?
Yes. I think there was something from the Northern Ireland Statistics Authority about that, but I haven't looked at it in detail.
From what I saw of at least 3 places a week yesterday during Freshers week, I would not be surprised in the slightest.
As I said the other day this Xmas lockdown for students telling them not to go home will be irrelevant. All will have had it by then except the odd library recluse.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
All the nations were doubling every ten days or so through September. England seems to have plateaued this week while the others carried on. Not quite sure why this is.
= "We're going to cave-in but we'll never admit it."
I really do not care as long as a deal is agreed
Probably why you and I would make poor negotiators. If they do cave in that may well be worth criticising if they are particularly shameless about it - everyone sells their side afterwards, I don't begrudge that - but it will be weird if, once again, we were told they actually wanted no deal and they prove otherwise by doing one. Even if that is a substandard deal which they caved in to get, if they get one it would once again show that the idea particular people involved wanted no deal would be wrong.
But I won't count chickens on this one until they hatch.
The point was made earlier. Ursula van der Leyen and supporting staff will explain something to Boris, and be nice to him. Frost will desperately try to stop but Boris will be flattered and sign.
After Christmas Boris will realise he's been thoroughly shafted, but there's his signature at the bottom of the document!
That all may be true, in fact I can believe it easily particularly since he has now already in effect admitted his last deal was no good (or, most charitably, so easily misused), but is irrelevant to the point that if he signs, for whatever reason and even if it is a bad deal and even if he realises later that is so, then it shows he did want a deal as claimed.
Indeed; I agree with your last point, but is a bad deal better than no deal. I can't remember where we are in that cycle! If NE Scots fisherman are thrown under a bus, metaphorically speaking, that could leave Boris in trouble. Although I think on the Daily Express would care very much.
= "We're going to cave-in but we'll never admit it."
I really do not care as long as a deal is agreed
Probably why you and I would make poor negotiators. If they do cave in that may well be worth criticising if they are particularly shameless about it - everyone sells their side afterwards, I don't begrudge that - but it will be weird if, once again, we were told they actually wanted no deal and they prove otherwise by doing one. Even if that is a substandard deal which they caved in to get, if they get one it would once again show that the idea particular people involved wanted no deal would be wrong.
But I won't count chickens on this one until they hatch.
The point was made earlier. Ursula van der Leyen and supporting staff will explain something to Boris, and be nice to him. Frost will desperately try to stop but Boris will be flattered and sign.
After Christmas Boris will realise he's been thoroughly shafted, but there's his signature at the bottom of the document!
That all may be true, in fact I can believe it easily particularly since he has now already in effect admitted his last deal was no good (or, most charitably, so easily misused), but is irrelevant to the point that if he signs, for whatever reason and even if it is a bad deal and even if he realises later that is so, then it shows he did want a deal as claimed.
Indeed; I agree with your last point, but is a bad deal better than no deal. I can't remember where we are in that cycle! If NE Scots fisherman are thrown under a bus, metaphorically speaking, that could leave Boris in trouble. Although I think on the Daily Express would care very much.
I think we're at the position where it's recognised that No Deal is a problem (because the systems aren't remotely ready and there are 3 months to go) but it's not recognised that the Desired Deal is also a problem (because the systems aren't remotely ready and there are 3 months to go).
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
I`d back Trump against Johnson in a fist fight. Despite his small hands. 4/6 Trump 6/4 Johnson.
I think I would too. Johnson has the muscly torso but he strikes me as a bit of a show pony.
Philip would back Johnson wouldn`t he? Given his previous comparisons with a certain beefy actor?
17 Scotland patients in ICU 290 England patients in ICU
In line with the general hospital numbers, England has a roughly proportional share of the UK total of ventilation patients; Scotland less, Wales more.
6,968 new positive cases...awaiting the scripters to publish the correct charts.
According to what I can see the split is: Wales 462, Scotland 775, NI 934(!), England 4,797
Yes, those are the figures I see. Per 100,000 that's: England 9 Scotland 14 Wales 15 Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
But that England 9 is a bit of an irrelevance. What is the figure for North of Sheffield say? I suspect higher than Scotland or Wales. This second wave is a regional outbreak.
Also, as I understand it, there are fewer people per 100,000 in hospital in Scotland compared to England.
Oh, okay. So that would suggest that testing is identifying a greater proportion of cases in Scotland. Maybe the ONS survey was on the optimistic side.
They were clearly making a judgement on whether it was unethical to keep the market open when Trump was ill. Initially they decided to suspend but now that it doesn't appear too serious they've opened it again.
Still confused why Warrington was one of the 4 locations chosen for extending lcokdown, other than our proximity to Liverpool the data doesn't seem to explain it.
Comments
It is true we live in more partisan times, but I do think if this were to occur then Pence's choice would go through smoothly and quickly.
If the Trump/Pence ticket is elected but the man at the top of the ballot doesn't make it (still pretty unlikely in actuarial terms - he's fairly old and fat but reasonably robust and with access to the best care) then Pence would have a lot of leeway. It's not like Supreme Court confirmation where there is an argument about legal qualification, compliance with all laws, and fundamental conflicts making it impossible to decide key cases fairly many years after the President has gone. VP is a political position up to the next election and it would, in practice, be a very senior Republican of Pence's choosing - it doesn't matter whether Pelosi personally likes him or her.
(Sorry, a bit tongue in cheek. I don't think wealth taxes are a great idea. I do think that inheritance tax could be higher.)
Caught up on Panorama last night!
And to check that he really is dead.
Evens on whether Clinton or Obama get to dance on the grave first.
Anyway, I suspect medical euphemism is a country-specific thing and we can't make equivalences between what they say about Trump and what they said about Boris.
That doesn't seem to be happening here, unless the better system is in England.
For this relief, much thanks!
If it's done on assets then that means home-owning pensioners finding sums every year that may exceed their pension income.
It also penalises savers generally when we already have a very low savings rate.
Anyway, I must be off, but I've really rather liked the more traditional political arguments today.
In the case of Biden, respect for the man. In the case of Trump, respect for the office.
Effective public health interventions have been around for centuries:
https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/venice-quarantine-history/
I have no problem in those with the highest incomes paying more in tax, and nor do I think it will solve all our problems. But combined with new approaches to taxing wealth (oh no, more emigration) it will contribute to raising more money for better public services - and for paying off some of the cost of Covid.
But maybe I'm completely wrong. The top 5% of earners would be far too busy working all day to spend any time on PB.
But still, the latest estimate of UK net worth is what £10,000,000,000,000 (10 trillion) plus?
1% of that a year transforms public finances.
UK citizenship and residency have to be made dependent on coughing up your share.
Either way, I`m not opposed to this in principle. Won`t be much use in repairing the nation`s finances though, as long as we can all agree on that.
Have a good day!
TSE, LadyG, Charles, Alistair Meeks to name but 4 are all or were comfortably in the top 5% of earners certainly and spend plenty of time posting on here
(*If that's even a word)
If it's more tax income then it won't work. If it's greater equality then it won't work.
Raising the top rate tax rate therefore has no sensible reason behind it.
By some other means, increasing the tax load on the richest may or may not be a wise thing to do. My hunch is that we're in about the right place. As I posted a few minutes ago I think inheritance tax is quite low, and I also think it's a tax that isn't so bad to raise. (Admittedly I hate the effect that it has on big houses etc. We're already well down that path anyway - nobody lives in the substantial Victorian houses of central London)
Lol, yes, that's more like it!
But I won't count chickens on this one until they hatch.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1312049616997752836
I wouldn't necessarily stay for the drinks afterwards, though.
But I made it clear that I don't regard income tax as the solution to all our problems, and I agree with you on the potential for IHT rises.
After Christmas Boris will realise he's been thoroughly shafted, but there's his signature at the bottom of the document!
Versus 6,874 same day last week. Not exactly doubling every week.
England 9
Scotland 14
Wales 15
Northern Ireland 49
Of course, it's Johnson that's bungling it. For what it's worth, I think a daily rate of 9 is problematic enough, but there's a reality/perception disconnect here.
If only of the phenomenon of people thinking the curve a real thing.
Incidentally Laffer is a crank these days.
I suspect higher than Scotland or Wales.
This second wave is a regional outbreak.
If NE Scots fisherman are thrown under a bus, metaphorically speaking, that could leave Boris in trouble. Although I think on the Daily Express would care very much.
Pence is at 60.
It only generally gets brought up when the person bringing it up thinks we're on the right . . . that doesn't mean we're always on the right, since it doesn't always get brought up.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1312054269663731712
17 Scotland patients in ICU
290 England patients in ICU
Unlike most of his fellow senators, fairly young.
Why have BF suspended and then reopened I wonder?
Sigh.
Still confused why Warrington was one of the 4 locations chosen for extending lcokdown, other than our proximity to Liverpool the data doesn't seem to explain it.