Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The storming of the Capitol building in DC – US polling reaction – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 15 in General
The storming of the Capitol building in DC – US polling reaction – politicalbetting.com

Even as they widely condemn the violence at the Capitol, Americans say there could be more in the days to come; for most Americans, what happened last week is described as insurrection and an attempt to overthrow the government (CBS News) Details: https://t.co/A3FW1sxWZA pic.twitter.com/pVVIH0teZl

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • E pluribus unum.
  • Lock him up.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 15
    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....
  • Those independents figures should alarm the GOP.
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 411

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    Excellent effort considering the snow was causing some delay across Northern England.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 15
    Good job we aren't relying on just Pfizer...where as the EU....eeeekkk.
  • Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    Awesomeness.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645
    Note Trump still has a 70% approval rating amongst GOP voters though
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 2,832
    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
  • Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    HYUFD said:
    Not their total failure over covid?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645

    Those independents figures should alarm the GOP.

    Biden won Independents 54% to 41% for Trump last November

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 35,679
    edited January 15

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    We really should be at the peak of hospital admissions now and deaths with a couple of weeks at the most, hopefully less. Light at the end of the tunnel now in sight.
  • OT Brexit threatens Cheltenham

    Irish trainers face having to pay VAT on the value of horses they bring to Cheltenham, so face million pound bills even though they will get it back later.
    https://www.racingpost.com/news/members/latest/mullins-fears-colossal-cheltenham-vat-costs-as-he-tests-uks-new-travel-waters/468292 (£££)

    Cheltenham is in mid-March so that is two issues that need to be solved -- VAT and the Covid vaccination and/or quarantine status of Irish staff.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950

    Good job we aren't relying on just Pfizer...where as the EU....eeeekkk.
    Presumably they have some amount stockpiled from previous deliveries? I certainly hope so.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 35,679

    Those independents figures should alarm the GOP.

    The fact that 1/3 of Americans still give Trump a positive approval rating alarms me, that's for sure.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,613

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 15
    kle4 said:

    Good job we aren't relying on just Pfizer...where as the EU....eeeekkk.
    Presumably they have some amount stockpiled from previous deliveries? I certainly hope so.
    I believe the uk has 5 million doses...there is eveidence EU countries that have been good at roll out where already running low on supply.

    UK also has 20+ million doses of AZN ready to bottle.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 15

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
    I believe that is the new stretch goal from the government.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950
    If I'd had to have guessed I'd have assumed most Republicans condemned the riot but saw no reason to do anything about it or that Trump should be punished for it, as cold hard political calculation kicked in.
  • HYUFD said:
    Not their total failure over covid?
    Total failure over covid?

    Deaths per million population
    Netherlands: 745
    UK: 1,263
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,019
    HYUFD said:
    Doesn't say much for the SCUP for most of that decade, either. Or now.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 15

    HYUFD said:
    Not their total failure over covid?
    Total failure over covid?

    Deaths per million population
    Netherlands: 745
    UK: 1,263
    I didn't say UK was good....or held up as a example to.follow. Remember initially they went herd immunity policy.
  • Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    The SFF may be overstating the case in saying Boris knows "this is not true". More likely, he does not know what was said and does not care if it is true or not.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 9,337
    Has anyone heard from Rishi Sunak recently? It seems like weeks ago that he was in the news.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,954
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Say UBI is 1000 per month. And x is your post tax income, y is your income tax

    Currently you get - 1000 + x , all paid by your job. Y is sent to the government.

    UBI - 1000, your job pays you x. Y + 1000 is sent to the government.

    This is only one of a number of ways of dealing with the employed situation for UBI systems.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,457
    edited January 15
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1350077905993392131?s=20

    Doesn't say much for the SCUP for most of that decade, either. Or now.
    And why embed a tweet that embeds a tweet (from Jeremy Hunt) that quotes Tony Blair. Why not just post the Blair quote?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 25,866

    HYUFD said:
    Not their total failure over covid?
    Total failure over covid?

    Deaths per million population
    Netherlands: 745
    UK: 1,263
    I mean no one is suggesting that the UK has done anything well other than vaccines.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,118
    FPT - worth noting that, as relieved as everyone will be with a successful vaccine and suppression of Covid-19, it won't win the next election for Boris. We'll move straight on to the (nasty) economic and social fall-out.

    If the Tories can show by GE2024 that Brexit has been smoothed and normalised, that they're doing the right things by their voters, are on the road to full recovery and with a plan (which won't be finished by then) to get there, with people still unsure of Labour, they will win.

    But, they could screw it up (majorly), Starmer could get the whole Labour movement singing in unison and peeling off soft Tories, and there's the massive elephant in the room of the Union too.

    It's an open goal for both, IMHO, but right now I'd say Labour is simply too far behind and damaged to be on an equal footing, so the Tories have definitely got the ball.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
    I believe that is the new stretch goal from the government.
    My appointment for tomorrow morning doesn't say with vaccine. And I've neither preference, nor concern over which.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,789

    Good job we aren't relying on just Pfizer...where as the EU....eeeekkk.
    We will have to be careful to have enough Pfizer supplies to ensure we can give a timely second dose to those already done. That might slow us a little. But the AZ numbers should still be racing ahead. We could significantly exceed those mid Feb targets.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 36,294

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    The SFF may be overstating the case in saying Boris knows "this is not true". More likely, he does not know what was said and does not care if it is true or not.
    To paraphrase Boris Johnson, sometimes it pays to give the impression you don't know what the truth is, because then people won't be able to tell if you are lying.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455
    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 40,118

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    I sympathise with the challenges in exporting and the new SPS requirements (which we aren't ready for and neither is the EU) but I don't on the quotas.

    Frost and Johnson put the whole UK trade deal on the line for weeks over fish, and fought as hard as they could - we even discussed it on here and the prospect of the whole thing collapsing due to fish.

    They might have been able to squeeze it up to 30-35% with one hell of an effort but there was a never a deal to be done any higher than that. So they have got a big increase in several species and they've got lots of extra funding to help too.

    I think some (not all) of their criticism is unreasonable.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 2,832
    edited January 15

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Say UBI is 1000 per month. And x is your post tax income, y is your income tax

    Currently you get - 1000 + x , all paid by your job. Y is sent to the government.

    UBI - 1000, your job pays you x. Y + 1000 is sent to the government.

    This is only one of a number of ways of dealing with the employed situation for UBI systems.
    No you dont this is the mistake you are making you get 1000 of your pay tax free. For example someone earning 17000 a year currently pays 75£ a month in tax and takes home 1267£ a month.

    If you remove the tax free allowance altogether they wouldnt be paying 1075 tax they would be paying 275 tax
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999
    edited January 15

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    I sympathise with the challenges in exporting and the new SPS requirements (which we aren't ready for and neither is the EU) but I don't on the quotas.

    Frost and Johnson put the whole UK trade deal on the line for weeks over fish, and fought as hard as they could - we even discussed it on here and the prospect of the whole thing collapsing due to fish.

    They might have been able to squeeze it up to 30-35% with one hell of an effort but there was a never a deal to be done any higher than that. So they have got a big increase in several species and they've got lots of extra funding to help too.

    I think some (not all) of their criticism is unreasonable.
    Didn't we hold all the carp? Er, cards?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,789

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    Maybe. I have no idea what his "thing" is. I haven't been paying attention which means no one has been paying attention (if PB-ers don't then no one sensible possibly would).

    What's the elevator pitch?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 10,019
    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    I sympathise with the challenges in exporting and the new SPS requirements (which we aren't ready for and neither is the EU) but I don't on the quotas.

    Frost and Johnson put the whole UK trade deal on the line for weeks over fish, and fought as hard as they could - we even discussed it on here and the prospect of the whole thing collapsing due to fish.

    They might have been able to squeeze it up to 30-35% with one hell of an effort but there was a never a deal to be done any higher than that. So they have got a big increase in several species and they've got lots of extra funding to help too.

    I think some (not all) of their criticism is unreasonable.
    Didn't we hold all the carp? Er, cards?
    Certainly a lot of carping. Not sure what the rEU fishermen are saying to their governments, mind.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Deleted.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,840

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,840

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    I sympathise with the challenges in exporting and the new SPS requirements (which we aren't ready for and neither is the EU) but I don't on the quotas.

    Frost and Johnson put the whole UK trade deal on the line for weeks over fish, and fought as hard as they could - we even discussed it on here and the prospect of the whole thing collapsing due to fish.

    They might have been able to squeeze it up to 30-35% with one hell of an effort but there was a never a deal to be done any higher than that. So they have got a big increase in several species and they've got lots of extra funding to help too.

    I think some (not all) of their criticism is unreasonable.
    It may just prove to be the case that Brexit voters are ungrateful sods...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 25,698

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    Who feels more cucked by BJ, the DUP or the fisher folk?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,954
    edited January 15
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Say UBI is 1000 per month. And x is your post tax income, y is your income tax

    Currently you get - 1000 + x , all paid by your job. Y is sent to the government.

    UBI - 1000, your job pays you x. Y + 1000 is sent to the government.

    This is only one of a number of ways of dealing with the employed situation for UBI systems.
    No you dont this is the mistake you are making you get 1000 of your pay tax free. For example someone earning 17000 a year currently pays 75£ a month in tax and takes home 1417£ a month.

    If you remove the tax free allowance altogether they wouldnt be paying 1075 tax they would be paying 275 tax
    I think you are missing the point - the tax system would be changed (as part of the UBI). So that take home form employment would be reduced by the UBI amount.

    You could think of it as 100% tax on the first £UBI of salary.

    So no net effect on the employed person. The money that would have ended up in their bank account will just come from 2 sources.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 2,832
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
    Is that because the lib dems don't have any policies....or at least ones they have told anyone about
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,789

    the Tories have definitely got the ball.

    And here is SKS, looking around, trying to put together some nice passing moves.... oh...and Boris has played the balls.....







  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,325
    edited January 15
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Did I blink and miss National Insurance getting abolished?

    If you do this properly you merge everything into one. You have just a single UBI (possibly supplemented per child and any other supplementaries getting added to the base figure, like how your tax-free allowance can be adjusted today) and just a single tax rate on any earnings that you have. So it isn't just the tax on Income Tax you need to account for but the tax on National Insurance too.

    If someone is earning £12,500 then they should get the UBI plus be taxed on the entire £12,500 with whatever their appropriate tax rate is. If we were to have a 33% tax rate (for Income Tax and NI combined) then that individual would be paying £4,125 in tax.

    Currently that individual pays £360 in National Insurance, £0 in Income Tax per annum.

    So you could make a UBI of £3,765 without affecting tax rates, giving any extra income to anyone, having any savings, having any growth or anything else. The rest would need to be funded.

    Of course by doing this as well anything currently exempt from paying NI (like the elderly that get away without paying it) would now get caught up in NI. As they should.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 90,129
    edited January 15

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    Who feels more cucked by BJ, the DUP or the fisher folk?
    The DUP, he went to the DUP conference and said no PM could ever put a border in the Irish Sea, then went and did that.

    I don't think he cucked the fishing people to that level.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,789
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
    What kinda wank is "a closer arrangement with the EU" that doesn't re-open the Brexit Wars, pray tell?

    Question One: Does it involve paying the EU any money?
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 2,782
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
    And while I like that as a position, I struggle to trust that anyone with the EU flag (yes I know, the CoE also use it) in their twitter name would not try and rejoin. When the Lib Dems stop their 'simping' for a foreign state I'll return home and vote for them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,325
    edited January 15

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Say UBI is 1000 per month. And x is your post tax income, y is your income tax

    Currently you get - 1000 + x , all paid by your job. Y is sent to the government.

    UBI - 1000, your job pays you x. Y + 1000 is sent to the government.

    This is only one of a number of ways of dealing with the employed situation for UBI systems.
    No you dont this is the mistake you are making you get 1000 of your pay tax free. For example someone earning 17000 a year currently pays 75£ a month in tax and takes home 1417£ a month.

    If you remove the tax free allowance altogether they wouldnt be paying 1075 tax they would be paying 275 tax
    I think you are missing the point - the tax system would be changed (as part of the UBI). So that take home form employment would be reduced by the UBI amount.

    You could think of it as 100% tax on the first £UBI of salary.

    So no net effect on the employed person. The money that would have ended up in their bank account will just come from 2 sources.
    That defeats the point of doing this.

    The point of a UBI scheme (for me at least) is to do away with the iniquity of the fact that currently those on benefits face an effective 85% tax rate if they earn more due to the removal of benefits. By making the benefits universal and fixing the tax system instead they would be just paying tax rather than paying tax and losing benefits at 73% of whatever they earn post-tax.

    If you introduce a 100% UBI tax on low earners then it becomes pointless to earn. Which is the problem that is supposed to be getting fixed by having a UBI in the first place.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,840
    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
    Is that because the lib dems don't have any policies....or at least ones they have told anyone about
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-liberal-democrats-eu-ed-davey-europe-b404557.html

    The difficulties for all English parties is that they have all coalesced around a policy supporting Brexit, massive state spending, infrastructure investment, a Green economy etc etc.

    The only things left argue about are how many Union Jacks should be displayed in conference calls.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,047
    FPT

    Gadfly said:

    Just discovered my crazy dog likes mustard.

    About the only thing he is not too keen on is cinnamon.

    The only things my pair won't eat is lead shot and mushrooms.

    My sister's dog nicked a piece of fruit cake on Christmas Day. Having worked at a vets she knew that dried fruit could be poisonous to dogs if consumed above a certain quantity, so she cut and dismantled a similar portion of the cake, and carefully counted how many raisins it contained.

    Having then satisfied herself that this was probably below the lethal quantity, she turned around to discover that the dog had eaten the rest of the cake.

    And? (He asked, with some trepidation....)
    Sister decided she had no option but a trip to the vets (on Christmas Day); hence the trepidation was in the resulting bill.

    The dog was most put out, but lived.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
    What kinda wank is "a closer arrangement with the EU" that doesn't re-open the Brexit Wars, pray tell?

    Question One: Does it involve paying the EU any money?
    Glad you asked that. It reminds me of the time Bob Hope and I were playing backgammon while discussing the implications of non-tariff barriers to financial services. He was pretty upset I can tell you to find out that in order to visit the EU as an independent professional soliciting for business you need a degree and six years experience.

    Oh how we laughed. But he did say that was the sort of thing a closer arrangement with the EU might mean.

    What times.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,840

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
    What kinda wank is "a closer arrangement with the EU" that doesn't re-open the Brexit Wars, pray tell?

    Question One: Does it involve paying the EU any money?
    Well, the Tory oven ready deal pays out Danegeld, so why not?

    Personally I have no problem paying into joint schemes.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 2,832

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Did I blink and miss National Insurance getting abolished?

    If you do this properly you merge everything into one. You have just a single UBI (possibly supplemented per child and any other supplementaries getting added to the base figure, like how your tax-free allowance can be adjusted today) and just a single tax rate on any earnings that you have. So it isn't just the tax on Income Tax you need to account for but the tax on National Insurance too.

    If someone is earning £12,500 then they should get the UBI plus be taxed on the entire £12,500 with whatever their appropriate tax rate is. If we were to have a 33% tax rate (for Income Tax and NI combined) then that individual would be paying £4,125 in tax.

    Currently that individual pays £360 in National Insurance, £0 in Income Tax per annum.

    So you could make a UBI of £3,765 without affecting tax rates, giving any extra income to anyone, having any savings, having any growth or anything else. The rest would need to be funded.

    Of course by doing this as well anything currently exempt from paying NI (like the elderly that get away without paying it) would now get caught up in NI. As they should.
    Which is all well and good but if you want to have ubi that replaces all benefits then it must be enough to live on, 1000 a month per adult is already less than they would get on uc. What tax rate would that be combined....pretty close to 100 when you consider it will go to all adults whether working or not.

    Feel free to point out the error in my calculations of what the required tax take would be in the previous thread. Yes I left out ni in calculating but that would only make a difference of 0.12*12500*51,000,000 so subtract another 76 billion of the almost trillion tax take the government would need taking it down to about 880 billion and reducing the extra tax needed to be raised on people to 290 billion on top of the 194 billion it currently takes off them
  • Anyhoo time for us to have elected judges, shocking decision by SCOTUK today.

    My post isn't related to me working in the financial services and insurance industry.

    HONEST.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 29,456
    .

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
    I believe that is the new stretch goal from the government.
    My appointment for tomorrow morning doesn't say with vaccine. And I've neither preference, nor concern over which.
    Won't be much use if it's without, though... :smile:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950
    Scott_xP said:
    #NotAllRioters and let it go people.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 29,456

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    Who feels more cucked by BJ, the DUP or the fisher folk?
    The DUP, he went to the DUP conference and said no PM could ever put a border in the Irish Sea, then went and did that...
    The PM achieves the impossible, and all you can do is criticise.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,325
    29% of Registered GOP voters disapprove or are not sure about Donald Trump? And less than half strongly approve of him?

    Not all hope is lost about everyone in the the GOP yet.

    Trump really is the American Corbyn. Once he's gone even the majority of Republicans will want to be moving away from him as fast as they can I expect.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary Scottish fisherman’s Federation letter - body most often quoted by ministers/ best access to Govt/ backers of Brexit approach now saying Govt has left it in “worst of both worlds...many in seafood supply chain fear they will not survive..”

    SFF letter to PM: “You and your Government have spun a line about a 25% uplift in quota for the UK, but you know this is not true, and your deal does not deliver that...”


    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    Basically Boris Johnson has treated (Scottish) Fisherman with all the fidelity he gave to his wives.

    We have stepped through the looking glass. The govt doesn't even pretend to care that it is telling lies. And why should it. 80 seat majority, plenty happy with Brexit, vaccinations ramping up.

    And on top of all that, when things are back to "normal" and SKS stands up at PMQs and challenges the Cons, BoJo only has to ask why, if the Cons are so bad, he voted with the government on every single critical issue of the past year and a half.
    Step forward Ed Davey?
    To say, er, let's rejoin the EU? Let's fight the Brexit War AGAIN? Because the voters just can't get enough Brexit....
    Clearly you are not keeping up with events. Davey has explicitly said Rejoin is not LibDem policy, though he does favour a closer arrangement with the EU.
    What kinda wank is "a closer arrangement with the EU" that doesn't re-open the Brexit Wars, pray tell?

    Question One: Does it involve paying the EU any money?
    Well, the Tory oven ready deal pays out Danegeld, so why not?

    Personally I have no problem paying into joint schemes.
    Indeed. Though I think the EU wont do it for plenty, as they're like Sky in that regard.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 38,789
    UK's R number now between 1.2 and 1.3, from 1 to 1.4 last week.

    Which means it may have got better, worse, or be stable!

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 29,456

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
    A side effect they didn't advertise.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 7,229
    If Francis is right and we cleared 300k vaccinations yesterday, I will be the first to say 'hats off.'

    Would be a supreme effort given much of the north and Scotland got hammered by heavy snowfall yesterday.

    More snow to come tonight, across the Pennines again but also into the South East and East Anglia. Be interested to see if we southerners can cope as well!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,349
    While clearly ludicrous, this kind of checklist is crucial for safety in clinical practice. Having regretably spent too much time in hospital in the past, and been very familiar with the repetitive checking (I'm still the same bloody patient as I was yesterday, I'm in an isolation room!) its been interesting to see the other side of this, via academic research into error prevention and reporting in clinic.
    Of course she isn't pregnant at 99, but when we get to the 40-50 year old its an entirely valid question, and surely easier to just ask everyone.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 7,229

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
    I believe that is the new stretch goal from the government.
    My appointment for tomorrow morning doesn't say with vaccine. And I've neither preference, nor concern over which.
    Good man OKC.

    Will you be the first vaccinated PBer?
  • eekeek Posts: 11,035
    edited January 15



    That defeats the point of doing this.

    The point of a UBI scheme (for me at least) is to do away with the iniquity of the fact that currently those on benefits face an effective 85% tax rate if they earn more due to the removal of benefits. By making the benefits universal and fixing the tax system instead they would be just paying tax rather than paying tax and losing benefits at 73% of whatever they earn post-tax.

    If you introduce a 100% UBI tax on low earners then it becomes pointless to earn. Which is the problem that is supposed to be getting fixed by having a UBI in the first place.

    Any rate of tax on low earners with a UBI system is going to be very high by necessity - which is where the idea of UBI falls apart as it will discourage people from working.

    For instance if you give a UBI of £10000 but expect those that are earning £30000 to be net contributors to the tax base you need a tax rate of 50% just to cover UBI before anything else.

    Now you could set UBI at £5000 but that is less benefit than even a single 23 year old male would receive over a year.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,349
    Gadfly said:

    FPT

    Gadfly said:

    Just discovered my crazy dog likes mustard.

    About the only thing he is not too keen on is cinnamon.

    The only things my pair won't eat is lead shot and mushrooms.

    My sister's dog nicked a piece of fruit cake on Christmas Day. Having worked at a vets she knew that dried fruit could be poisonous to dogs if consumed above a certain quantity, so she cut and dismantled a similar portion of the cake, and carefully counted how many raisins it contained.

    Having then satisfied herself that this was probably below the lethal quantity, she turned around to discover that the dog had eaten the rest of the cake.

    And? (He asked, with some trepidation....)
    Sister decided she had no option but a trip to the vets (on Christmas Day); hence the trepidation was in the resulting bill.

    The dog was most put out, but lived.
    (Livid surely - Ed)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,349

    UK's R number now between 1.2 and 1.3, from 1 to 1.4 last week.

    Which means it may have got better, worse, or be stable!

    As I posted earlier, this doesn't fit the ZOE study or the falling reported infections.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,035

    Gadfly said:

    FPT

    Gadfly said:

    Just discovered my crazy dog likes mustard.

    About the only thing he is not too keen on is cinnamon.

    The only things my pair won't eat is lead shot and mushrooms.

    My sister's dog nicked a piece of fruit cake on Christmas Day. Having worked at a vets she knew that dried fruit could be poisonous to dogs if consumed above a certain quantity, so she cut and dismantled a similar portion of the cake, and carefully counted how many raisins it contained.

    Having then satisfied herself that this was probably below the lethal quantity, she turned around to discover that the dog had eaten the rest of the cake.

    And? (He asked, with some trepidation....)
    Sister decided she had no option but a trip to the vets (on Christmas Day); hence the trepidation was in the resulting bill.

    The dog was most put out, but lived.
    (Livid surely - Ed)
    The dog lived, the owner was livid when they saw the vet's bill.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,325
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Did I blink and miss National Insurance getting abolished?

    If you do this properly you merge everything into one. You have just a single UBI (possibly supplemented per child and any other supplementaries getting added to the base figure, like how your tax-free allowance can be adjusted today) and just a single tax rate on any earnings that you have. So it isn't just the tax on Income Tax you need to account for but the tax on National Insurance too.

    If someone is earning £12,500 then they should get the UBI plus be taxed on the entire £12,500 with whatever their appropriate tax rate is. If we were to have a 33% tax rate (for Income Tax and NI combined) then that individual would be paying £4,125 in tax.

    Currently that individual pays £360 in National Insurance, £0 in Income Tax per annum.

    So you could make a UBI of £3,765 without affecting tax rates, giving any extra income to anyone, having any savings, having any growth or anything else. The rest would need to be funded.

    Of course by doing this as well anything currently exempt from paying NI (like the elderly that get away without paying it) would now get caught up in NI. As they should.
    Which is all well and good but if you want to have ubi that replaces all benefits then it must be enough to live on, 1000 a month per adult is already less than they would get on uc. What tax rate would that be combined....pretty close to 100 when you consider it will go to all adults whether working or not.

    Feel free to point out the error in my calculations of what the required tax take would be in the previous thread. Yes I left out ni in calculating but that would only make a difference of 0.12*12500*51,000,000 so subtract another 76 billion of the almost trillion tax take the government would need taking it down to about 880 billion and reducing the extra tax needed to be raised on people to 290 billion on top of the 194 billion it currently takes off them
    The irony of a UBI properly introduced is it won't boost the income of those not working. The floor should be no higher than the floor they currently get. So for those who are currently on benefits they would migrate to UBI.

    No, the improvement is the efficiency savings and the reduction in marginal tax rate for them to earn more is the real winner.

    Currently people who are on UC pay a marginal tax rate of 85% on everything they earn. By reducing that to 33% you eliminate the "it isn't worth working" effect and get people to choose to earn more of their own volition. Since they're choosing to earn more, the UC you're currently paying is effectively reduced when they earn more reducing the burden on the state - and they pay 33% of what they earn extra instead of 85% of nothing in marginal tax.

    You eliminate the "I only want to work 16 hours or I'll lose my benefits" mentality that the benefits system creates and help the poorest not by giving them more UBI, but by enabling them to earn more and keep what they earn instead of taking it away in reduced benefits.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,875
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Did I blink and miss National Insurance getting abolished?

    If you do this properly you merge everything into one. You have just a single UBI (possibly supplemented per child and any other supplementaries getting added to the base figure, like how your tax-free allowance can be adjusted today) and just a single tax rate on any earnings that you have. So it isn't just the tax on Income Tax you need to account for but the tax on National Insurance too.

    If someone is earning £12,500 then they should get the UBI plus be taxed on the entire £12,500 with whatever their appropriate tax rate is. If we were to have a 33% tax rate (for Income Tax and NI combined) then that individual would be paying £4,125 in tax.

    Currently that individual pays £360 in National Insurance, £0 in Income Tax per annum.

    So you could make a UBI of £3,765 without affecting tax rates, giving any extra income to anyone, having any savings, having any growth or anything else. The rest would need to be funded.

    Of course by doing this as well anything currently exempt from paying NI (like the elderly that get away without paying it) would now get caught up in NI. As they should.
    Which is all well and good but if you want to have ubi that replaces all benefits then it must be enough to live on, 1000 a month per adult is already less than they would get on uc. What tax rate would that be combined....pretty close to 100 when you consider it will go to all adults whether working or not.

    Feel free to point out the error in my calculations of what the required tax take would be in the previous thread. Yes I left out ni in calculating but that would only make a difference of 0.12*12500*51,000,000 so subtract another 76 billion of the almost trillion tax take the government would need taking it down to about 880 billion and reducing the extra tax needed to be raised on people to 290 billion on top of the 194 billion it currently takes off them
    UBI (not a bad idea but it has to be done right and across the board and be simple) should be funded by wealth and
    inheritance tax rather than income tax. I believe that all humans today shoudl have some natural inheritance from past society but many do not and it is random depending on wishes of (now) dead people . So increase inheritance or related taxes like wealth and gift tax and say the UBI bit is the universal inheritance
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950

    Anyhoo time for us to have elected judges, shocking decision by SCOTUK today.

    My post isn't related to me working in the financial services and insurance industry.

    HONEST.

    Is that statement made under oath?

    Not that I doubt it of course.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,954

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Say UBI is 1000 per month. And x is your post tax income, y is your income tax

    Currently you get - 1000 + x , all paid by your job. Y is sent to the government.

    UBI - 1000, your job pays you x. Y + 1000 is sent to the government.

    This is only one of a number of ways of dealing with the employed situation for UBI systems.
    No you dont this is the mistake you are making you get 1000 of your pay tax free. For example someone earning 17000 a year currently pays 75£ a month in tax and takes home 1417£ a month.

    If you remove the tax free allowance altogether they wouldnt be paying 1075 tax they would be paying 275 tax
    I think you are missing the point - the tax system would be changed (as part of the UBI). So that take home form employment would be reduced by the UBI amount.

    You could think of it as 100% tax on the first £UBI of salary.

    So no net effect on the employed person. The money that would have ended up in their bank account will just come from 2 sources.
    That defeats the point of doing this.

    The point of a UBI scheme (for me at least) is to do away with the iniquity of the fact that currently those on benefits face an effective 85% tax rate if they earn more due to the removal of benefits. By making the benefits universal and fixing the tax system instead they would be just paying tax rather than paying tax and losing benefits at 73% of whatever they earn post-tax.

    If you introduce a 100% UBI tax on low earners then it becomes pointless to earn. Which is the problem that is supposed to be getting fixed by having a UBI in the first place.
    That is the issue that all benefits systems face. They disincentives work. At the moment, a bottom end job pays benefits + a small amount.

    However, people are getting jobs that pay little or more than benefits. Why? The simple answer is that they hope to get a better job.

    A UBI isn't about necessarily giving people more money. It is about providing absolute stability to a basic level of income.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 52,262

    If Francis is right and we cleared 300k vaccinations yesterday, I will be the first to say 'hats off.'

    Would be a supreme effort given much of the north and Scotland got hammered by heavy snowfall yesterday.

    More snow to come tonight, across the Pennines again but also into the South East and East Anglia. Be interested to see if we southerners can cope as well!

    Not sure what you are on about, the Independent front page the other day said the government had already failed to meet the vaccine target.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 21,840

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
    I believe that is the new stretch goal from the government.
    My appointment for tomorrow morning doesn't say with vaccine. And I've neither preference, nor concern over which.
    Good man OKC.

    Will you be the first vaccinated PBer?
    I had mine in December.
  • I think I see the Trump and Rudy G defence strategy.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 1,349
    Foxy said:

    Looks like will be well over 300k+ vaccinations done yesterday across the UK.

    To infinity and beyond....

    The surgeries will start going mad next week with the AZ vaccine so I would think 500K by next Friday
    I believe that is the new stretch goal from the government.
    My appointment for tomorrow morning doesn't say with vaccine. And I've neither preference, nor concern over which.
    Good man OKC.

    Will you be the first vaccinated PBer?
    I had mine in December.
    Bloody queue jumper. You should have waited until all the dog groomers, nail technicians, hair-dressers and NMR spectroscopists were done first. :D
  • kle4 said:

    Anyhoo time for us to have elected judges, shocking decision by SCOTUK today.

    My post isn't related to me working in the financial services and insurance industry.

    HONEST.

    Is that statement made under oath?

    Not that I doubt it of course.
    Well I'm not signing that statement with vi coactus.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 2,832

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Did I blink and miss National Insurance getting abolished?

    If you do this properly you merge everything into one. You have just a single UBI (possibly supplemented per child and any other supplementaries getting added to the base figure, like how your tax-free allowance can be adjusted today) and just a single tax rate on any earnings that you have. So it isn't just the tax on Income Tax you need to account for but the tax on National Insurance too.

    If someone is earning £12,500 then they should get the UBI plus be taxed on the entire £12,500 with whatever their appropriate tax rate is. If we were to have a 33% tax rate (for Income Tax and NI combined) then that individual would be paying £4,125 in tax.

    Currently that individual pays £360 in National Insurance, £0 in Income Tax per annum.

    So you could make a UBI of £3,765 without affecting tax rates, giving any extra income to anyone, having any savings, having any growth or anything else. The rest would need to be funded.

    Of course by doing this as well anything currently exempt from paying NI (like the elderly that get away without paying it) would now get caught up in NI. As they should.
    Which is all well and good but if you want to have ubi that replaces all benefits then it must be enough to live on, 1000 a month per adult is already less than they would get on uc. What tax rate would that be combined....pretty close to 100 when you consider it will go to all adults whether working or not.

    Feel free to point out the error in my calculations of what the required tax take would be in the previous thread. Yes I left out ni in calculating but that would only make a difference of 0.12*12500*51,000,000 so subtract another 76 billion of the almost trillion tax take the government would need taking it down to about 880 billion and reducing the extra tax needed to be raised on people to 290 billion on top of the 194 billion it currently takes off them
    UBI (not a bad idea but it has to be done right and across the board and be simple) should be funded by wealth and
    inheritance tax rather than income tax. I believe that all humans today shoudl have some natural inheritance from past society but many do not and it is random depending on wishes of (now) dead people . So increase inheritance or related taxes like wealth and gift tax and say the UBI bit is the universal inheritance
    I am not against the idea of UBI itself. What I am against is this idea that we can have ubi that is reasonable and not have to raise taxation to pay for it
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,051

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Did I blink and miss National Insurance getting abolished?

    If you do this properly you merge everything into one. You have just a single UBI (possibly supplemented per child and any other supplementaries getting added to the base figure, like how your tax-free allowance can be adjusted today) and just a single tax rate on any earnings that you have. So it isn't just the tax on Income Tax you need to account for but the tax on National Insurance too.

    If someone is earning £12,500 then they should get the UBI plus be taxed on the entire £12,500 with whatever their appropriate tax rate is. If we were to have a 33% tax rate (for Income Tax and NI combined) then that individual would be paying £4,125 in tax.

    Currently that individual pays £360 in National Insurance, £0 in Income Tax per annum.

    So you could make a UBI of £3,765 without affecting tax rates, giving any extra income to anyone, having any savings, having any growth or anything else. The rest would need to be funded.

    Of course by doing this as well anything currently exempt from paying NI (like the elderly that get away without paying it) would now get caught up in NI. As they should.
    Which is all well and good but if you want to have ubi that replaces all benefits then it must be enough to live on, 1000 a month per adult is already less than they would get on uc. What tax rate would that be combined....pretty close to 100 when you consider it will go to all adults whether working or not.

    Feel free to point out the error in my calculations of what the required tax take would be in the previous thread. Yes I left out ni in calculating but that would only make a difference of 0.12*12500*51,000,000 so subtract another 76 billion of the almost trillion tax take the government would need taking it down to about 880 billion and reducing the extra tax needed to be raised on people to 290 billion on top of the 194 billion it currently takes off them
    UBI (not a bad idea but it has to be done right and across the board and be simple) should be funded by wealth and
    inheritance tax rather than income tax. I believe that all humans today shoudl have some natural inheritance from past society but many do not and it is random depending on wishes of (now) dead people . So increase inheritance or related taxes like wealth and gift tax and say the UBI bit is the universal inheritance
    A strange sentiment from someone using the handle "state go away".
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 50,325
    eek said:



    That defeats the point of doing this.

    The point of a UBI scheme (for me at least) is to do away with the iniquity of the fact that currently those on benefits face an effective 85% tax rate if they earn more due to the removal of benefits. By making the benefits universal and fixing the tax system instead they would be just paying tax rather than paying tax and losing benefits at 73% of whatever they earn post-tax.

    If you introduce a 100% UBI tax on low earners then it becomes pointless to earn. Which is the problem that is supposed to be getting fixed by having a UBI in the first place.

    Any rate of tax on low earners with a UBI system is going to be very high by necessity - which is where the idea of UBI falls apart as it will discourage people from working.

    For instance if you give a UBI of £10000 but expect those that are earning £30000 to be net contributors to the tax base you need a tax rate of 50% just to cover UBI before anything else.

    Now you could set UBI at £5000 but that is less benefit than even a single 23 year old male would receive over a year.
    If you're on benefits currently you're already on a real 85% marginal tax rate essentially. That is the existing system today. So if you go to a 50% tax rate instead of an 85% tax rate that is a major improvement not a worsening of the situation.

    What ethical reason is there to charge people a real marginal tax rate of 85%? Let alone the poorest of society?

    Though your maths are flawed. At a 50% tax rate you would need to be earning £20,000 to be a net contributer to the tax base.

    Personally figures from the air I would suggest a £1000 per month UBI, with a 40% tax rate, increasing to 50% after £100k per annum. No National Insurance, no exceptions.

    That would mean someone not earning would get £12,000 UBI. Someone earning £30k would pay £0 tax and get £0 in benefits, anyone earning under £30k per annum would be a net recipient, only those earning over £30k would be net contributers. All incomes including pensions are taxed at the full rate.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    Meanwhile, the first Moderna vaccine was given in Norway on Friday.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,068
    2016:

    Much of the media coverage and political positions adopted since the Brexit vote has viewed the prospect of leaving the EU as being negative – bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for stability.

    But for Scottish fishing, nothing could be further from the truth. Brexit provides a once in a lifetime opportunity to restore normality and give our industry a real chance to prosper once again.
    ...
    make no mistake, the size of the prize is enormous, and if the right deal is reached on Brexit, it will turn us back into a world-class seafood harvesting and exporting country.


    2021:

    This industry now finds itself in the worst of both worlds. Your deal leaves us with shares that not only fall very far short of zonal attachment, but in many cases fail to “bridge the gap” compared to historic catches, and with no ability to leverage more fish from the EU, as they have full access to our waters. This, coupled with the chaos experienced since 1st January in getting fish to market means that many in our industry now fear for their future, rather than look forward to it with optimism and ambition.

    They were as dumb as the DUP, weren't they?

    https://www.sff.co.uk/brexit-great-opportunity-scottish-fishing/
    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645

    29% of Registered GOP voters disapprove or are not sure about Donald Trump? And less than half strongly approve of him?

    Not all hope is lost about everyone in the the GOP yet.

    Trump really is the American Corbyn. Once he's gone even the majority of Republicans will want to be moving away from him as fast as they can I expect.

    Trump got 47% in 2020 and suffered a narrow defeat, Corbyn got 32% in 2019 and suffered a landslide defeat, that is the difference
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,875

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Say UBI is 1000 per month. And x is your post tax income, y is your income tax

    Currently you get - 1000 + x , all paid by your job. Y is sent to the government.

    UBI - 1000, your job pays you x. Y + 1000 is sent to the government.

    This is only one of a number of ways of dealing with the employed situation for UBI systems.
    No you dont this is the mistake you are making you get 1000 of your pay tax free. For example someone earning 17000 a year currently pays 75£ a month in tax and takes home 1417£ a month.

    If you remove the tax free allowance altogether they wouldnt be paying 1075 tax they would be paying 275 tax
    I think you are missing the point - the tax system would be changed (as part of the UBI). So that take home form employment would be reduced by the UBI amount.

    You could think of it as 100% tax on the first £UBI of salary.

    So no net effect on the employed person. The money that would have ended up in their bank account will just come from 2 sources.
    That defeats the point of doing this.

    The point of a UBI scheme (for me at least) is to do away with the iniquity of the fact that currently those on benefits face an effective 85% tax rate if they earn more due to the removal of benefits. By making the benefits universal and fixing the tax system instead they would be just paying tax rather than paying tax and losing benefits at 73% of whatever they earn post-tax.

    If you introduce a 100% UBI tax on low earners then it becomes pointless to earn. Which is the problem that is supposed to be getting fixed by having a UBI in the first place.
    That is the issue that all benefits systems face. They disincentives work. At the moment, a bottom end job pays benefits + a small amount.

    However, people are getting jobs that pay little or more than benefits. Why? The simple answer is that they hope to get a better job.

    A UBI isn't about necessarily giving people more money. It is about providing absolute stability to a basic level of income.
    ignoring UBI being a good idea as long as incentives to work are in place (as PT says this is the whole point) , I think a better question to ask is that why are entry level or basic jobs paying not much more than benefits? TBF the tory and labour recent governments have both done good with raising minimum wage and tax thresholds for low earners but whilst we live in a virtue signalling media environment that concentrates on need not how hard low earners work (often in shit conditions) then little will change.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,420
    Scott_xP said:
    Don't worry we can always ask Europol for their copy...oh wait.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 2,832

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    isam said:

    isam said:

    eek said:

    Bloody hell man, first rule of SCon Club, don’t say what we really think out loud!


    Clearly he misses out the fact - cheap food = full of sugar and other crap to keep costs down.

    The only difference between now and the 19th century is that then cheap food was poor quality and often featured things that weren't food (so you were under weight). Now it contains calories that aren't easy to burn off.
    If you were a one parent family with say two kids and struggling financially this would seem a cheap way to feed the family for three or four dinners

    https://www.aldi.co.uk/wholewheat-fusilli/p/082202239090300
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/chunky-chopped-tomatoes-in-juice/p/048727004006800 twice
    https://www.aldi.co.uk/british-chicken-breast-fillets/p/080499172907500

    £5.88 for probably half a weeks dinners
    500g of pasta, one tin of tomatoes and 1kg of chicken is not going to provide 12 dinners, unless they are all for Tiny Tim. What planet are you on?
    Two tins of tomatoes.

    I am on planet normal - that could easily make one adult and two kids half a weeks dinners

    It works out at about 300 calories per meal for 12 meals. An adult needs 2000-2500 calories per day and a child aged 6-12 needs 1600-2200. So 300 for your main meal of the day looks pretty inadequate. I shop and cook for a family of five and I can tell you that your meal would do us for about one dinner, maybe with a bit left over. Our kids are far from fat (in fact most clothes don't fit them because they are too skinny) so we are definitely not overfeeding them.
    Fair enough, let them buy double what I suggested - three or four meals for less than £12
    I think there is general agreement that people can just about afford to eat a decent diet on benefits as long as they don't buy anything else. Unfortunately people also need to pay for clothes, transport, heating, etc. Some people compound their difficulties by not knowing how to cook (a widespread problem not only affecting the poor; not helped by schools no longer teaching home economics). Some people working long hours and shifts don't have time to cook. Some people don't have the equipment. I just find all this smug wisdom being dispensed by well off people a bit too Marie Antoinette* for my liking.
    (*I know she was misquoted).
    How much do you think is required to feed a family of four 2 children 2 adults per week? As a pound figure?
    About £150. Less if the kids are on free school meals. The Food Standards Agency have a report on the cost of a healthy food basket in Northern Ireland in 2018, they have it as £159 for a family of 4 with 2 school age kids. Presumably it is higher in 2020 with inflation, but NI may have higher costs than GB.
    I think we probably spend about £200/week on food for a family of 5. We don't shop at the cheapest supermarket and get organic meat and milk, but we cook everything from scratch which saves money and don't normally buy any alcohol.
    And on uc the least that family would get per week is 229£ the most 253£

    Add in 100£ per month for gas and electric
    25£ per month for internet
    two sim only deals for the adults 10£ a month comes to another 33£ a week

    So using your figure we come to 183£ leaving them between 46£ a week and 70£ a week

    Aha you say they may need to pay some towards rent well lets add in another 100£ a month for rent and 60 for council tax thats another 34£ a week

    Still leaves a net of 12£ a week to 36£ a week
    Clothes and bus fares. Car needs a repair. Haircuts. Furniture and appliances need to be replaced. School trips. Curtains and bedding. This all assumes your benefits are paid on time, you don't get sanctioned unfairly, you're not subject to the bedroom tax etc.
    The last sentence brings us back to UBI...
    I'd like to see fair minimum determined by focus group and explicit listing of what, on average, should be covered as basic (what speed of broadband etc etc) year by year. And I'd mandate from government that contract exits are made available for discretionary services for change of circumstances (e.g. get sacked, you may bin Sky Sports: when you so wish)

    That I would expect it to almost always work out at pretty much the 60% of median relative poverty line that the right love to whinge about is besides the point. The fact the right like to whinge about it is reason enough to sink government money into making an explicit calculation.

    And UBI, plus a restructuring of tax to make good the difference (e.g. if you take UBI, you go on higher tax rates for a period of time, your call. And 'something, something' for the self employed), yes please. And btw, state pension, child benefit, student financing - yes, ultimately, they're going to be UBI too.
    The contract exits seem a good idea or for that matter contract breaks. However what did I not list that you consider necessary?

    Both adults have a mobile, they have internet access, they have gas and electric,they have food a roof some money left over for discretionary spending on clothes etc. That is by its very definition a safety net. The purpose of benefits is to provide support when you fall on hard times not to provide a living.

    UBI is a pipedream that will never happen because it would cost too much. Merely giving every adult in britain 1000£ a month ubi would cost in the region of 480 billion and 1000 a month would not be enough to live on it would probably need to be double that assuming housing benefit and other benefits would be axed. Add in the NHS, defence,schools etc and you are pretty much looking at the entirety of GDP going to the government coffers. When that happens no one is getting enough extra from working to bother. Why would a surgeon do a hugely stressful job when he is not getting a lot more than the ubi recipient
    Your maths is completely flawed because you're assuming that it would be new money.
    • If the UBI replaces the tax-free threshold then it is effectively cost-neutral for anyone over the tax-free threshold. Or is not much extra cash for those above the tax-free threshold.
    • For anyone on benefits it would replace or supplement the benefits they were getting previously - so again not much extra cash up front.
    • It should lead to major cost reductions. You could essentially abolish Job Centre Plus and streamline much of HMRC. Job centres should be about helping people find work because they want to rather than because they need to pretend they want to and need to attend meetings or they'll get sanctioned.
    • Done properly people should actually want to work anyway as the poverty trap the current benefits system creates would be abolished.
    A surgeon would be earning well more than the UBI, that is ridiculous. In fact done properly every single person who works would be earning more than the UBI, the UBI would be the floor not the ceiling that benefits currently create.
    It is your maths that is flawed I am afraid. The tax free threshold is 12500 or so about a 1000 a month. That saves you paying tax of 200£ a month so giving someone a 1000 a month is a net loss of 800£.

    Yes if you abolished housing benefit and uc that would be a saving but lets face it that won't happen and if it did the howls of protest would be huge as people would be getting even less than they are now.

    Going back to that family of four they currently get

    1100 a month uc
    1000 a month housing benefit
    about 150£ a month reduction on council tax

    That is before we add in free school meals, prescriptions etc.

    You plan to replace this with 2X1000 ubi leaving them 250£ less well off

    In addition you are giving every basic rate tax payer a boost to their pay of 1000£ a month in pay while charging them 200£ more tax
    In the case of the employed, the UBI would be *entirely* taxed off their wages and given back to them by the government.

    At this point, people then say, why bother?

    The point is to make the system utterly dependable. You get your UBI each month, no matter what. Lose your job, UBI etc etc

    No forms to fill out, no claims to be made.

    This has the important effect of reducing the obstacles to getting a job from unemployment - at the moment, there is a whole dance about signing off benefits etc.

    In a UBI system, get some work, get some money, pay some tax. Your UBI cannot be effected.
    Well see there is the issue you then have, if for example UBI is 1000 a month and if you work it all gets clawed back....

    Working a 37.5 hour week full time means you are working 1950 hours a year. A person working currently and earning 18000 a year loses 12000 automatically to claw back ubi plus the tax to cover the rest of govenment expenditure is probably working 1950 hours a year for 3 to 4000 pounds. A mere 70 to 80 pounds extra in their pocket a week. How many will just say not worth it?
    Which is the old, old argument against benefits.....

    Yet people do jobs where they get *less* than benefits - rare, but it does happen

    Very common are jobs which only make marginally more than benefits. Tons of those. No shortage of applicants...
    Go through the numbers I posted and point out where I was mistaken about the extra costs. I already pointed out your error in thinking the tax free allowance gives you a reduction of tax of that amount when it actually equates to saving you paying basic rate tax on the first 1042 a month you earn which at 20% is about 200 a month not a thousand
    The tax free rate has a knock-on effect on the higher tax rate take too, although I doubt it's a massive amount.
    Yes it does however he is still failing to get the basic point that a tax free allowance of 1000 a month does not give you 1000 in your pocket automatically it just saves you 200 in tax you would of otherwise paid
    Say UBI is 1000 per month. And x is your post tax income, y is your income tax

    Currently you get - 1000 + x , all paid by your job. Y is sent to the government.

    UBI - 1000, your job pays you x. Y + 1000 is sent to the government.

    This is only one of a number of ways of dealing with the employed situation for UBI systems.
    No you dont this is the mistake you are making you get 1000 of your pay tax free. For example someone earning 17000 a year currently pays 75£ a month in tax and takes home 1417£ a month.

    If you remove the tax free allowance altogether they wouldnt be paying 1075 tax they would be paying 275 tax
    I think you are missing the point - the tax system would be changed (as part of the UBI). So that take home form employment would be reduced by the UBI amount.

    You could think of it as 100% tax on the first £UBI of salary.

    So no net effect on the employed person. The money that would have ended up in their bank account will just come from 2 sources.
    That defeats the point of doing this.

    The point of a UBI scheme (for me at least) is to do away with the iniquity of the fact that currently those on benefits face an effective 85% tax rate if they earn more due to the removal of benefits. By making the benefits universal and fixing the tax system instead they would be just paying tax rather than paying tax and losing benefits at 73% of whatever they earn post-tax.

    If you introduce a 100% UBI tax on low earners then it becomes pointless to earn. Which is the problem that is supposed to be getting fixed by having a UBI in the first place.
    That is the issue that all benefits systems face. They disincentives work. At the moment, a bottom end job pays benefits + a small amount.

    However, people are getting jobs that pay little or more than benefits. Why? The simple answer is that they hope to get a better job.

    A UBI isn't about necessarily giving people more money. It is about providing absolute stability to a basic level of income.
    Actually I disagree with your simple answer. More often than not I suspect the answer is they want to avoid dealing with the idiots in the dwp. I suspect if you gave them UBI at about current benefits level and they didnt have to attend the DWP a lot more would opt to not bother
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,977
    HYUFD said:

    29% of Registered GOP voters disapprove or are not sure about Donald Trump? And less than half strongly approve of him?

    Not all hope is lost about everyone in the the GOP yet.

    Trump really is the American Corbyn. Once he's gone even the majority of Republicans will want to be moving away from him as fast as they can I expect.

    Trump got 47% in 2020 and suffered a narrow defeat, Corbyn got 32% in 2019 and suffered a landslide defeat, that is the difference
    7 million votes behind and 74 electoral votes behind is NOT a narrow defeat!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,999

    2016:

    Much of the media coverage and political positions adopted since the Brexit vote has viewed the prospect of leaving the EU as being negative – bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for stability.

    But for Scottish fishing, nothing could be further from the truth. Brexit provides a once in a lifetime opportunity to restore normality and give our industry a real chance to prosper once again.
    ...
    make no mistake, the size of the prize is enormous, and if the right deal is reached on Brexit, it will turn us back into a world-class seafood harvesting and exporting country.


    2021:

    This industry now finds itself in the worst of both worlds. Your deal leaves us with shares that not only fall very far short of zonal attachment, but in many cases fail to “bridge the gap” compared to historic catches, and with no ability to leverage more fish from the EU, as they have full access to our waters. This, coupled with the chaos experienced since 1st January in getting fish to market means that many in our industry now fear for their future, rather than look forward to it with optimism and ambition.

    They were as dumb as the DUP, weren't they?

    https://www.sff.co.uk/brexit-great-opportunity-scottish-fishing/
    https://www.sff.co.uk/letter-to-prime-minister-from-sff-chief-executive/

    "A border in the Irish Sea is something that no British Prime Minister could sign up to."

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/poots-in-storm-as-michael-gove-warns-irish-sea-brexit-border-chaos-will-get-worse-39949304.html

This discussion has been closed.