Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
Oh dear. It's been shot but they still won't let the argument drop...
Alpaca experts complain to PM - and say Geronimo was 'dragged kicking and screaming' to his death
Alpaca experts have written a letter of complaint to the government and have vowed to take further action over the way Geronimo was dragged from his pen, bundled in a horsebox and killed.
The British Alpaca Society has complained to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Environment Secretary George Eustice, and various other government officials over the way the animal was removed from his owner's farm.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
My suggestion for care costs: 1. A government scheme where you pay £N thousand pounds or pledge £N+M thousand pounds from your estate and your costs are covered. 2. If you don't opt for 1. by a certain age then you take your chances and the residual figure you are allowed to keep before the state steps in should be around the current figure or even reduced.
A commission sets the costs for state funding and what £N and £M are over time.
This has the advantage of being voluntary and promoting the sharing of risk. Some tax support for those with little wealth required but no need for huge tax increases or NI surcharge.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Ha!
I was at a typical Los Angeles dinner party last night, and everyone is on this Neighborhood app, which means that everyone believes there has been a unique and local massive increase in crime rates.
I suggested that everyone should join Neighborhood but to enter a zip code on the other side of the country. If you did this, you'd rapidly decide that your local area was incredibly safe compared to zip code xxxxx.
It's the same issue with the news and natural disasters. Everyone thinks there are more... but the reality is we just see the consequences of them much more than we used to.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Only the effete indulge in endless restaurant reviews. Why aren't you into manly things like cars, planes and trains?
He then went on to back the full implementation of the triple lock. The endless mollycoddling of the elderly at the expense of the working taxpayer must continue under all circumstances, it would seem.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Why are you posting on here, let alone entering another random slanging match, whilst on holiday at a restaurant with a tasting menu? That is seriously weird.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Mate, I travel. I travel widely in America. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. In LA, San Fran, New Orleans and onwards
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Why are you posting on here, let alone entering another random slanging match, whilst on holiday at a restaurant with a tasting menu? That is seriously weird.
Homesick :-) .
I want a report on an Onsen Goose Egg.
Personally I'm staying old-fashioned and having an Ostrich Burger, with home grown tomatoes, and a hegg.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
I think @Leon that I promised to report on 'Atlas Shrugged'.
It's a long read. A really long read. It's sort of an annoying read too. However it's a magnificent and interesting book. Anyone that denigrates it is a fool. I'm not sure that I'd choose to actively support her (Ayn Rand) views, but the book isn't a political diatribe anyway. Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all.
"Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all."
OK, I've read it more than once.
Here are two things that deserve condemnation:
(1) The sex scenes are literally the worst in any book I've ever read. (Yes, worse than the ones that won an award by a former PBer.)
(2) It could have done with a good editor.
1. The sex scenes really don't exist. I think there's good and bad on this count. I rather like the art-deco type sexiness at some points. 2. Yes - very much so. Particularly JG's radio broadcast. Turgid and implausible anyway.
I'll stick with "magnificent and interesting" though.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Mate, I travel. I travel widely in America. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. In LA, San Fran, New Orleans and onwards
Shocking
You do need to go to rural America - to the near shantytowns in Colorado, New Mexico or West Virginia.
The poverty there is even worse, because at least there are jobs in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. What's the solution to people living in falling down trailers, with no education and no nearby jobs?
He then went on to back the full implementation of the triple lock. The endless mollycoddling of the elderly at the expense of the working taxpayer must continue under all circumstances, it would seem.
A big tactical mistake imo. They are not getting the oldie votes back. May as well try and win over some 40 and 50 somethings instead.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You've picked up no end.
People often seem to think I flick between left and right but I think that is just the madness of 21st century online forums. From where I stand, I am just a committed liberal democratic type.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Why are you posting on here, let alone entering another random slanging match, whilst on holiday at a restaurant with a tasting menu? That is seriously weird.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
It isn't actually Jack Posobiec video. I saw this actual video week or so ago. There is a slightly weird sub genre of youtube people who drive or walk around inner cities of US and film it e.g. there is a guy going around NYC documenting all the empty shops and how long they have been empty, how they all get tagged up etc.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
BREAKING: Brazil vs Argentina has been suspended as the Brazilian Health Authorities have stormed onto the pitch to deport Emiliano Martinez, Giovani Lo Celso and Cristian Romero.
I think @Leon that I promised to report on 'Atlas Shrugged'.
It's a long read. A really long read. It's sort of an annoying read too. However it's a magnificent and interesting book. Anyone that denigrates it is a fool. I'm not sure that I'd choose to actively support her (Ayn Rand) views, but the book isn't a political diatribe anyway. Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all.
"Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all."
OK, I've read it more than once.
Here are two things that deserve condemnation:
(1) The sex scenes are literally the worst in any book I've ever read. (Yes, worse than the ones that won an award by a former PBer.)
(2) It could have done with a good editor.
1. The sex scenes really don't exist. I think there's good and bad on this count. I rather like the art-deco type sexiness at some points. 2. Yes - very much so. Particularly JG's radio broadcast. Turgid and implausible anyway.
I'll stick with "magnificent and interesting" though.
Have you read The Fountainhead? I thought it was her better book.
That's more like it! A decent loco at last. Split headcode boxes and the little Scottie on it. Not bad looking in BR blue with yellow cabs, either. Sadly cut up over 30 years ago.
Where is that? Crinalarich? Tyndrum?
The only place I can think of with mountains like that in the background, and that sort of infrastructure, would be Fort Bill.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Oh, you're such a charmer. Not sure what you suggest is possible, though.
Of course you can retweet who you like. And I can point out when you're retweeting fascist scum. It's a free world.
Anyway, as ever, places with lots of well heeled visitors shall weather the storm comparatively unscathed - small commuter belt towns may even come out of this better, because of WFH - and it's the poorer neighbourhoods that will continue to suffer.
I agree about the first point but oddly enough East Ham stands in stark contradiction to your second. We have, I think, one empty unit along the whole High Street. Now, I accept that may be atypical and the street may be commercially atypical but the fact remains any shop closing is quickly (in some instances within 48 hours) re-opened and trading.
A new Halal butchers (the third or fourth) opens next Friday and while you could argue the diversity of shops isn't what it was, the street accurately reflects the considerable demographic and cultural changes of the last 15 years and the perhaps gratifying truth the business of buying and selling seems to transcend cultural boundaries and whether you ascribe that to modern capitalism or more ancient practices, it's what people do and seemingly what they like.
On that basis alone, reports of the death of retail are grossly over-exaggerated.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Ha!
I was at a typical Los Angeles dinner party last night, and everyone is on this Neighborhood app, which means that everyone believes there has been a unique and local massive increase in crime rates.
I suggested that everyone should join Neighborhood but to enter a zip code on the other side of the country. If you did this, you'd rapidly decide that your local area was incredibly safe compared to zip code xxxxx.
It's the same issue with the news and natural disasters. Everyone thinks there are more... but the reality is we just see the consequences of them much more than we used to.
But it is mad to deny that America has a huge new homeless/drug problem
I think @Leon that I promised to report on 'Atlas Shrugged'.
It's a long read. A really long read. It's sort of an annoying read too. However it's a magnificent and interesting book. Anyone that denigrates it is a fool. I'm not sure that I'd choose to actively support her (Ayn Rand) views, but the book isn't a political diatribe anyway. Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all.
"Nothing at all in the book deserves any condemnation at all."
OK, I've read it more than once.
Here are two things that deserve condemnation:
(1) The sex scenes are literally the worst in any book I've ever read. (Yes, worse than the ones that won an award by a former PBer.)
(2) It could have done with a good editor.
1. The sex scenes really don't exist. I think there's good and bad on this count. I rather like the art-deco type sexiness at some points. 2. Yes - very much so. Particularly JG's radio broadcast. Turgid and implausible anyway.
I'll stick with "magnificent and interesting" though.
Have you read The Fountainhead? I thought it was her better book.
No. In the postscript to AS she rather suggests that it's a progression and improvement on that. I think I will, but not for a few weeks.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
Since when is passing down your family home to your children when you lived there until death and just had state funded care at home stealing?
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and use state healthcare
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
It isn't actually Jack Posobiec video. I saw this actual video week or so ago. There is a slightly weird sub genre of youtube people who drive or walk around inner cities of US and film it e.g. there is a guy going around NYC documenting all the empty shops and how long they have been empty, how they all get tagged up etc.
I know that. I could have made a film on Brighton seafront this afternoon, done a bit of editing of it, and made it look as if the end of the world is nigh with all the shenanigans and dissolute drunkenness going on. It's not hard.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
Since when is passing down your family home to your children when you lived there until death stealing?
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and claim state healthcare
You are asking the state to take money from your neighbours to pay for you.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
Since when is passing down your family home to your children when you lived there until death and just had state funded care at home stealing?
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and use state healthcare
Stealing is an intentionally emotive term. But you don't seem to recognise that what you want does require input from other people to enable it. It's not simply a case of doing right by one's family.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
Since when is passing down your family home to your children when you lived there until death stealing?
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and claim state healthcare
You are asking the state to take money from your neighbours to pay for you.
As you are if you use the NHS or state education and own your own property, on your argument you should be made to take out private health insurance and use private education and not be a burden on taxpayers until you have used up all your private assets
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Why are you posting on here, let alone entering another random slanging match, whilst on holiday at a restaurant with a tasting menu? That is seriously weird.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
Leave it, Donald, they don't appreciate you and they're not worth it!
The wisest words I think I’ve ever seen you post on here @kinablu.
Right, off for another round of golf before lunch with Melania and that Russian hooker from the Steele dossier who p1ssed all over me
I don't think anyone has ever alleged Donald was peed on. I think the allegation was that he saw hookers pee on each other.
Oh they alleged it. I don't know if seriously, but definitely comedically. Last Week Tonight had a song about Putin and Donald which referenced the latter's face being covered in pee.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You've picked up no end.
People often seem to think I flick between left and right but I think that is just the madness of 21st century online forums. From where I stand, I am just a committed liberal democratic type.
Well, I find you much more interesting than many on here, because you are, to my mind, hard to read. Sometimes I agree with you very strongly, as above. Other times, I'm baffled at your views. Which is, of course, fair enough.
My suggestion for care costs: 1. A government scheme where you pay £N thousand pounds or pledge £N+M thousand pounds from your estate and your costs are covered. 2. If you don't opt for 1. by a certain age then you take your chances and the residual figure you are allowed to keep before the state steps in should be around the current figure or even reduced.
A commission sets the costs for state funding and what £N and £M are over time.
This has the advantage of being voluntary and promoting the sharing of risk. Some tax support for those with little wealth required but no need for huge tax increases or NI surcharge.
Has merit but the gnomes would say hard to administer.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Oh, you're such a charmer. Not sure what you suggest is possible, though.
Of course you can retweet who you like. And I can point out when you're retweeting fascist scum. It's a free world.
Of course. And cheers. Sincerely.
The food here is actually amazing. And I normally hate tasting menus. But this is top notch
But the video is the video. That is a real video of the streets of philly, and I’ve seen similar from many other American cities. The USA is heading into a bad place and neither party seems willing to address the problems, head on. They’d rather bicker about Woke or Whiteness
I am happy to agree that the republicans are probably worse, right now. Trump is a lunatic. But Biden is not much better. Afghanistan has been a shameful disaster for him
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Ha!
I was at a typical Los Angeles dinner party last night, and everyone is on this Neighborhood app, which means that everyone believes there has been a unique and local massive increase in crime rates.
I suggested that everyone should join Neighborhood but to enter a zip code on the other side of the country. If you did this, you'd rapidly decide that your local area was incredibly safe compared to zip code xxxxx.
It's the same issue with the news and natural disasters. Everyone thinks there are more... but the reality is we just see the consequences of them much more than we used to.
But it is mad to deny that America has a huge new homeless/drug problem
Indeed, you don’t deny it
From my wife’s family’s accounts, LA is absolutely awful at the moment with homelessness. San Fran apparently also the same.
However, if you are wealthy and live in the suburbs, you’re fine because you can drive past it and avoid having to deal with any of these people.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
It isn't actually Jack Posobiec video. I saw this actual video week or so ago. There is a slightly weird sub genre of youtube people who drive or walk around inner cities of US and film it e.g. there is a guy going around NYC documenting all the empty shops and how long they have been empty, how they all get tagged up etc.
I know that. I could have made a film on Brighton seafront this afternoon, done a bit of editing of it, and made it look as if the end of the world is nigh with all the shenanigans and dissolute drunkenness going on. It's not hard.
No editting required in some US cities. I saw exactly these scenes last time I was in the US, right downtown in Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. And this was pre-pandemic, it will now be even worse.
There is homelessness and drug issues in UK cities, but in some parts of the US it is a total different order of magnitude.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Ha!
I was at a typical Los Angeles dinner party last night, and everyone is on this Neighborhood app, which means that everyone believes there has been a unique and local massive increase in crime rates.
I suggested that everyone should join Neighborhood but to enter a zip code on the other side of the country. If you did this, you'd rapidly decide that your local area was incredibly safe compared to zip code xxxxx.
It's the same issue with the news and natural disasters. Everyone thinks there are more... but the reality is we just see the consequences of them much more than we used to.
But it is mad to deny that America has a huge new homeless/drug problem
Indeed, you don’t deny it
From my wife’s family’s accounts, LA is absolutely awful at the moment with homelessness. San Fran apparently also the same.
However, if you are wealthy and live in the suburbs, you’re fine because you can drive past it and avoid having to deal with any of these people.
LA like most big western cities is divided between the very rich and the very poor, once they reach middle age and have a family most residents there move out
BREAKING: Brazil vs Argentina has been suspended as the Brazilian Health Authorities have stormed onto the pitch to deport Emiliano Martinez, Giovani Lo Celso and Cristian Romero.
Why on earth would the match start if that was such a major concern, and having started what bloody difference would it have made to have sorted it out afterwards or at half time?
The changes from last week are very small and well within Margin of Error. The Conservatives seem to have done well out of the first debate but again nothing decisive.
In Ontario, the Liberals lead 36-35, in British Columbia the NDP lead 32-30 with the Liberals and Conservatives tied for second and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied at 31. The Conservatives have huge leads in Alberta (26 points) and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (32 points).
Remember, just under three quarters of the Canadian ridings are in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia (243 ridings out of 338).
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
Since when is passing down your family home to your children when you lived there until death stealing?
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and claim state healthcare
You are asking the state to take money from your neighbours to pay for you.
But his neighbours dont all vote Tory, and even if they do, are they proper CofE monarchist Tories?
The changes from last week are very small and well within Margin of Error. The Conservatives seem to have done well out of the first debate but again nothing decisive.
In Ontario, the Liberals lead 36-35, in British Columbia the NDP lead 32-30 with the Liberals and Conservatives tied for second and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied at 31. The Conservatives have huge leads in Alberta (26 points) and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (32 points).
Remember, just under three quarters of the Canadian ridings are in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia (243 ridings out of 338).
That should be enough for Trudeau to scrape home with most seats even with a slight swing to the Conservatives since 2019, especially as Trudeau still leads O'Toole as preferred PM 36% to 32%
The most idiotic policy several large US cities came up with was to make theft under $x00 equivalent to a parking ticket. So people just walk in, walk out with just below the limit and rinse and repeat. What retail business can survive that, so eventually they just shut up shop, and all you are doing is enriching organised thieves and for the opoid addicts enabling them to keep juicing.
THEYVE GIVEN ME A SPECIAL LAGUIOLE KNIFE FOR THE SEVENTH COURSE
That's one of the most bougie sentences I've ever read
Laguiole knives do come across as a bit up themselves.
The worst restaurants have a knife Sommelier who gives you a SELECTION of Laguiole knives. Eeesh
Had that at some 3 star gaff in the dordogne
I may be a savage, but I've always struggled to see to see how significant a difference there could be in most cutlery options (other than basic knife for steak knife kind of thing), and so have a peasant's disdain for anything which seems designed for the principal reason of condesending to people who cannot tell a lunch fork from a dessert fork.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
Since when is passing down your family home to your children when you lived there until death stealing?
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and claim state healthcare
You are asking the state to take money from your neighbours to pay for you.
But his neighbours dont all vote Tory, and even if they do, are they proper CofE monarchist Tories?
And if you were born without wealthy enough parents why should you expect to be able to work to buy your own home. Only those born with wealthy parent should expect to own a home.
Those who don't can simply work as the peasants they are to pay tax to provide for the lucky few to inherit.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Japanese soft cooked egg, I think.
They just told me. It’s a guinea fowl egg poached super slowly over 45 minutes! It is fucking amazing
I don’t think it has to be guinea fowl but that’s what they used here. With guinea fowl ragu. Dreamy
Some of the best dishes I've ever had have been egg.
The great thing about eggs is that they don't work so well with wine. Eggs at breakfast are essential.
Kingsley Amis’ prescription for greasy food like fried eggs was cheap blended whisky with lots of water. It’s not bad - cuts through the grease.
And Jeffrey Bernard's view of whisky was that stuff like gin or vodka just makes you an alcoholic, while whisky does the same but makes you mad over and above the alcoholism.
The most idiotic policy several large US cities came up with was to make theft under $x00 equivalent to a parking ticket. So people just walk in, walk out with juat below the limit and rinse and repeat.
That's partly the result of the stupid "three strikes" laws, where juries would let people off because they thought life imprisonment for the theft of $200 or the possession of crack was considered excessive.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Ha!
I was at a typical Los Angeles dinner party last night, and everyone is on this Neighborhood app, which means that everyone believes there has been a unique and local massive increase in crime rates.
I suggested that everyone should join Neighborhood but to enter a zip code on the other side of the country. If you did this, you'd rapidly decide that your local area was incredibly safe compared to zip code xxxxx.
It's the same issue with the news and natural disasters. Everyone thinks there are more... but the reality is we just see the consequences of them much more than we used to.
But it is mad to deny that America has a huge new homeless/drug problem
Indeed, you don’t deny it
From my wife’s family’s accounts, LA is absolutely awful at the moment with homelessness. San Fran apparently also the same.
However, if you are wealthy and live in the suburbs, you’re fine because you can drive past it and avoid having to deal with any of these people.
It is.
It always had an issue, but the last 18 months have been really bad.
Some of this is not their fault (other cities bussing their homeless to LA is pretty fucked up). Some is covid related. And some is deeper issues.
On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.
And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.
It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.
The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.
We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.
Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.
That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.
In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.
Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.
It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children
Albeit, not normally by stealing from your neighbour.
Or did I miss that part of the Bible?
Since when is passing down your family home to your children when you lived there until death stealing?
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and claim state healthcare
You are asking the state to take money from your neighbours to pay for you.
But his neighbours dont all vote Tory, and even if they do, are they proper CofE monarchist Tories?
And if you were born without wealthy enough parents why should you expect to be able to work to buy your own home. Only those born with wealthy parent should expect to own a home.
Those who don't can simply work as the peasants they are to pay tax to provide for the lucky few to inherit.
Which is rubbish. In London and the Home Counties now if you are on an average income you cannot afford to buy your own home without parental support or an inheritance in most areas however hard you try.
People also pay taxes for everyone to use the NHS or state education even if those users own their own home
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
It isn't actually Jack Posobiec video. I saw this actual video week or so ago. There is a slightly weird sub genre of youtube people who drive or walk around inner cities of US and film it e.g. there is a guy going around NYC documenting all the empty shops and how long they have been empty, how they all get tagged up etc.
I know that. I could have made a film on Brighton seafront this afternoon, done a bit of editing of it, and made it look as if the end of the world is nigh with all the shenanigans and dissolute drunkenness going on. It's not hard.
No editting required in some US cities. I saw exactly these scenes last time I was in the US, right downtown in Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. And this was pre-pandemic, it will now be even worse.
There is homelessness and drug issues in UK cities, but in some parts of the US it is a total different order of magnitude.
Yes, the idea you could match those philly scenes - and so many elsewhere in the USA - in the UK, is just nuts. You can do a great Ken loach ‘isn’t Britain grotty’ video in Wick or Margate or bits of Manchester but nothing will match the absolute zombie dystopia you can get in big American cities
I saw it. With my own eyes. Two years ago in Venice LA.
it’s often been a sketchy area, rising and falling, but now it is fucking scary throughout, even at 11am. Or it was for me and the wife. Not nice. Not nice at all
I may be a savage, but I've always struggled to see to see how significant a difference there could be in most cutlery options (other than basic knife for steak knife kind of thing), and so have a peasant's disdain for anything which seems designed for the principal reason of condesending to people who cannot tell a lunch fork from a dessert fork.
You are a savage, but if you want a single dinner knife that does it all, these are the business...
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
It isn't actually Jack Posobiec video. I saw this actual video week or so ago. There is a slightly weird sub genre of youtube people who drive or walk around inner cities of US and film it e.g. there is a guy going around NYC documenting all the empty shops and how long they have been empty, how they all get tagged up etc.
I know that. I could have made a film on Brighton seafront this afternoon, done a bit of editing of it, and made it look as if the end of the world is nigh with all the shenanigans and dissolute drunkenness going on. It's not hard.
No editting required in some US cities. I saw exactly these scenes last time I was in the US, right downtown in Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. And this was pre-pandemic, it will now be even worse.
There is homelessness and drug issues in UK cities, but in some parts of the US it is a total different order of magnitude.
Yes, the idea you could match those philly scenes - and so many elsewhere in the USA - in the UK, is just nuts. You can do a great Ken loach ‘isn’t Britain grotty’ video in Wick or Margate or bits of Manchester but nothing will match the absolute zombie dystopia you can get in big American cities
I saw it. With my own eyes. Two years ago in Venice LA.
it’s often been a sketchy area, rising and falling, but now it is fucking scary throughout, even at 11am. Or it was for me and the wife. Not nice. Not nice at all
The other less documented hard hit areas are rural areas in East of US. Small towns where rampant opioid addiction has again led to the zombie hordes.
The closest equivalent i would say is parts of Stoke where a particular unique variant of monkey dust is widely used. There is also the spice use in some towns. But again, different order of magnitude.
That should be enough for Trudeau to scrape home with most seats even with a slight swing to the Conservatives since 2019, especially as Trudeau still leads O'Toole as preferred PM 36% to 32%
That's a brave call with two weeks still left and two more leaders' debates on Wednesday and Thursday.
O'Toole's ratings have risen strongly through the campaign and there's a growing view in the wider electorate the Conservatives CAN win.
I would also note the non-rolling polls have a statistical tie between the Liberals and Conservatives but the NDP are scoring 3-4 points higher than in the daily rolling polls.
I know it's statistically unlikely but I was musing on the possibility of a tie in seats between the Liberals and Conservatives.
THEYVE GIVEN ME A SPECIAL LAGUIOLE KNIFE FOR THE SEVENTH COURSE
That's one of the most bougie sentences I've ever read
Laguiole knives do come across as a bit up themselves.
The worst restaurants have a knife Sommelier who gives you a SELECTION of Laguiole knives. Eeesh
Had that at some 3 star gaff in the dordogne
I may be a savage, but I've always struggled to see to see how significant a difference there could be in most cutlery options (other than basic knife for steak knife kind of thing), and so have a peasant's disdain for anything which seems designed for the principal reason of condesending to people who cannot tell a lunch fork from a dessert fork.
Steak knives are a nonsense, in that you only need them if the steak is cheap and nasty.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
It isn't actually Jack Posobiec video. I saw this actual video week or so ago. There is a slightly weird sub genre of youtube people who drive or walk around inner cities of US and film it e.g. there is a guy going around NYC documenting all the empty shops and how long they have been empty, how they all get tagged up etc.
I know that. I could have made a film on Brighton seafront this afternoon, done a bit of editing of it, and made it look as if the end of the world is nigh with all the shenanigans and dissolute drunkenness going on. It's not hard.
No editting required in some US cities. I saw exactly these scenes last time I was in the US, right downtown in Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. And this was pre-pandemic, it will now be even worse.
There is homelessness and drug issues in UK cities, but in some parts of the US it is a total different order of magnitude.
Yes, the idea you could match those philly scenes - and so many elsewhere in the USA - in the UK, is just nuts. You can do a great Ken loach ‘isn’t Britain grotty’ video in Wick or Margate or bits of Manchester but nothing will match the absolute zombie dystopia you can get in big American cities
I saw it. With my own eyes. Two years ago in Venice LA.
it’s often been a sketchy area, rising and falling, but now it is fucking scary throughout, even at 11am. Or it was for me and the wife. Not nice. Not nice at all
The other less documented hard hit areas are rural areas in East of US. Small towns where rampant opioid addiction has again led to the zombie hordes.
The closest equivalent i would say is parts of Stoke where a particular unique variant of monkey dust is widely used. There is also the spice use in some towns. But again, different order of magnitude.
These synthetic drugs are only going to get ‘better’ - more rhapsodic, addictive, and destructive.
I fear the only choice, eventually, will be Singapore style zero tolerance. Legalization does not work with the new opioids. They are too ‘good’. Where America is leading (sadly) others will follow. Cf obesity
We will have to hang drug dealers and put junkies in jail for decades
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
An insight came to me. There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example) So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this. Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
That should be enough for Trudeau to scrape home with most seats even with a slight swing to the Conservatives since 2019, especially as Trudeau still leads O'Toole as preferred PM 36% to 32%
That's a brave call with two weeks still left and two more leaders' debates on Wednesday and Thursday.
O'Toole's ratings have risen strongly through the campaign and there's a growing view in the wider electorate the Conservatives CAN win.
I would also note the non-rolling polls have a statistical tie between the Liberals and Conservatives but the NDP are scoring 3-4 points higher than in the daily rolling polls.
I know it's statistically unlikely but I was musing on the possibility of a tie in seats between the Liberals and Conservatives.
The latest poll from Nanos is Conservatives 34.9% and Liberals 33.4%, which is a swing to the Tories since 2019 but only of 0.14%. So while the Conservatives are likely to win the popular vote again the Liberals will still likely win most seats, helped by their leads in Ontario and Quebec.
So Trudeau will fail to get the majority he wanted but should remain PM
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
An insight came to me. There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example) So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this. Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
If that was the case they could just raise income tax so pensioners and young people alike would shoulder the burden.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
An insight came to me. There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example) So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this. Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
But an NI increase puts up the cost of labour, which would feed inflation not curb it.
The US coasts, and particularly the West coast, have terrible homelessness problems.
You have large numbers of people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. They are also magnets for those without possessions: the streets of Minneapolis or Dallas or Anchorage are not friendly to the homeless.
What is the solution to the problem?
Because if it was easy, it would have been solved.
How do you take a 45 year old veteran with shizophrenia and addiction and get him off the streets, get him healthy and make him a productive member of society?
This shouldn't be a Democrats vs Republicans thing - this should be people coming together to try and solve this problem.
And it will be expensive to solve. Because you need a combination of social housing, substance support and treatment for people with mental health issues.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
An insight came to me. There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example) So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this. Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
If that was the case they could just raise income tax so pensioners and young people alike would shoulder the burden.
Yes picking NI over Income Tax is clearly for the benefit of pensioners solely. It is saying keep voting Tory, and they will.
Two things need to happen - first Labour needs to stand up for workers and subsequently Tory voting workers need to be more open to voting Labour/LD. I just doubt Labour take the first step, if they do they might be surprised.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
It isn't actually Jack Posobiec video. I saw this actual video week or so ago. There is a slightly weird sub genre of youtube people who drive or walk around inner cities of US and film it e.g. there is a guy going around NYC documenting all the empty shops and how long they have been empty, how they all get tagged up etc.
I know that. I could have made a film on Brighton seafront this afternoon, done a bit of editing of it, and made it look as if the end of the world is nigh with all the shenanigans and dissolute drunkenness going on. It's not hard.
No editting required in some US cities. I saw exactly these scenes last time I was in the US, right downtown in Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. And this was pre-pandemic, it will now be even worse.
There is homelessness and drug issues in UK cities, but in some parts of the US it is a total different order of magnitude.
Yes, the idea you could match those philly scenes - and so many elsewhere in the USA - in the UK, is just nuts. You can do a great Ken loach ‘isn’t Britain grotty’ video in Wick or Margate or bits of Manchester but nothing will match the absolute zombie dystopia you can get in big American cities
I saw it. With my own eyes. Two years ago in Venice LA.
it’s often been a sketchy area, rising and falling, but now it is fucking scary throughout, even at 11am. Or it was for me and the wife. Not nice. Not nice at all
The other less documented hard hit areas are rural areas in East of US. Small towns where rampant opioid addiction has again led to the zombie hordes.
The closest equivalent i would say is parts of Stoke where a particular unique variant of monkey dust is widely used. There is also the spice use in some towns. But again, different order of magnitude.
These synthetic drugs are only going to get ‘better’ - more rhapsodic, addictive, and destructive.
I fear the only choice, eventually, will be Singapore style zero tolerance. Legalization does not work with the new opioids. They are too ‘good’. Where America is leading (sadly) others will follow. Cf obesity
We will have to hang drug dealers and put junkies in jail for decades
We should probably round up the celebrated ex-junkies and make public examples of them too.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
An insight came to me. There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example) So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this. Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
If that was the case they could just raise income tax so pensioners and young people alike would shoulder the burden.
Yes picking NI over Income Tax is clearly for the benefit of pensioners solely. It is saying keep voting Tory, and they will.
Two things need to happen - first Labour needs to stand up for workers and subsequently Tory voting workers need to be more open to voting Labour/LD. I just doubt Labour take the first step, if they do they might be surprised.
I'm curious to see what the LDs have to say on the matter.
The US coasts, and particularly the West coast, have terrible homelessness problems.
You have large numbers of people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. They are also magnets for those without possessions: the streets of Minneapolis or Dallas or Anchorage are not friendly to the homeless.
What is the solution to the problem?
Because if it was easy, it would have been solved.
How do you take a 45 year old veteran with shizophrenia and addiction and get him off the streets, get him healthy and make him a productive member of society?
This shouldn't be a Democrats vs Republicans thing - this should be people coming together to try and solve this problem.
And it will be expensive to solve. Because you need a combination of social housing, substance support and treatment for people with mental health issues.
Finland has been trying some radical policy on homelessness, not sure how much it is costing them or if it is sustainable long term but reports seem very positive so far.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Japanese soft cooked egg, I think.
They just told me. It’s a guinea fowl egg poached super slowly over 45 minutes! It is fucking amazing
I don’t think it has to be guinea fowl but that’s what they used here. With guinea fowl ragu. Dreamy
Some of the best dishes I've ever had have been egg.
The great thing about eggs is that they don't work so well with wine. Eggs at breakfast are essential.
Kingsley Amis’ prescription for greasy food like fried eggs was cheap blended whisky with lots of water. It’s not bad - cuts through the grease.
Churchillian.
Queen Victoria used to mix red wine and whisky half and half so she could drink only one glass very slowly over a long meal, to avoid having to go to the toilet. Bet that tasted grim.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
So you've been invited to the meeting as an observer? 😊
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Ha!
I was at a typical Los Angeles dinner party last night, and everyone is on this Neighborhood app, which means that everyone believes there has been a unique and local massive increase in crime rates.
I suggested that everyone should join Neighborhood but to enter a zip code on the other side of the country. If you did this, you'd rapidly decide that your local area was incredibly safe compared to zip code xxxxx.
It's the same issue with the news and natural disasters. Everyone thinks there are more... but the reality is we just see the consequences of them much more than we used to.
But it is mad to deny that America has a huge new homeless/drug problem
The US coasts, and particularly the West coast, have terrible homelessness problems.
You have large numbers of people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. They are also magnets for those without possessions: the streets of Minneapolis or Dallas or Anchorage are not friendly to the homeless.
What is the solution to the problem?
Because if it was easy, it would have been solved.
How do you take a 45 year old veteran with shizophrenia and addiction and get him off the streets, get him healthy and make him a productive member of society?
This shouldn't be a Democrats vs Republicans thing - this should be people coming together to try and solve this problem.
And it will be expensive to solve. Because you need a combination of social housing, substance support and treatment for people with mental health issues.
All of that stuff takes money and investment, which the Republicans will oppose. And of course Ronald Reagan started the mass homelessness problem in the US with de-institutionalization in the 1980s.
Of course, it should be a non-partisan thing. But just like a vaccine roll-out during a pandemic, it becomes partisan when one side is completely fucking nuts and celebrates horse de-wormer as a cure instead.
THEYVE GIVEN ME A SPECIAL LAGUIOLE KNIFE FOR THE SEVENTH COURSE
That's one of the most bougie sentences I've ever read
Laguiole knives do come across as a bit up themselves.
The worst restaurants have a knife Sommelier who gives you a SELECTION of Laguiole knives. Eeesh
Had that at some 3 star gaff in the dordogne
I may be a savage, but I've always struggled to see to see how significant a difference there could be in most cutlery options (other than basic knife for steak knife kind of thing), and so have a peasant's disdain for anything which seems designed for the principal reason of condesending to people who cannot tell a lunch fork from a dessert fork.
Steak knives are a nonsense, in that you only need them if the steak is cheap and nasty.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
So you've been invited to the meeting as an observer? 😊
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
An insight came to me. There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example) So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this. Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
If that was the case they could just raise income tax so pensioners and young people alike would shoulder the burden.
Yes picking NI over Income Tax is clearly for the benefit of pensioners solely. It is saying keep voting Tory, and they will.
Two things need to happen - first Labour needs to stand up for workers and subsequently Tory voting workers need to be more open to voting Labour/LD. I just doubt Labour take the first step, if they do they might be surprised.
I'm curious to see what the LDs have to say on the matter.
You've just made Ed Davey cry with gratitude that someone does at least.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
The way some people think that Employers NI as a direct tax on wages magically of all taxes doesn't affect prices - unlike fuel duty, tobacco duty or any other direct taxes, is simply unbelievable.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Japanese soft cooked egg, I think.
They just told me. It’s a guinea fowl egg poached super slowly over 45 minutes! It is fucking amazing
I don’t think it has to be guinea fowl but that’s what they used here. With guinea fowl ragu. Dreamy
Some of the best dishes I've ever had have been egg.
The great thing about eggs is that they don't work so well with wine. Eggs at breakfast are essential.
Kingsley Amis’ prescription for greasy food like fried eggs was cheap blended whisky with lots of water. It’s not bad - cuts through the grease.
And Jeffrey Bernard's view of whisky was that stuff like gin or vodka just makes you an alcoholic, while whisky does the same but makes you mad over and above the alcoholism.
In my experience (of others), there's a lot of truth in that.
Aroma of vanilla with lemon notes, hint of woodiness, schizoid affective disorder finish.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
So you've been invited to the meeting as an observer? 😊
Fuck off. I'm not in the mood for your bullshit.
Lol my fault. I shouldn't be engaging with someone who has projected the dates when they will inherit as you appeared to do yesterday. It's all about the money for you. You really are vermin.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
An insight came to me. There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example) So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this. Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
If that was the case they could just raise income tax so pensioners and young people alike would shoulder the burden.
People who are working can afford it if wages are generally going up. Those who are not working are less likely to be able to afford it, in a scenario where prices are otherwise rising. Is that the logic behind this ? (not saying I agree with it!) I take @ydoethur s other point about inflation on board, it probably isn't conceived as a way of beating inflation.
The US coasts, and particularly the West coast, have terrible homelessness problems.
You have large numbers of people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. They are also magnets for those without possessions: the streets of Minneapolis or Dallas or Anchorage are not friendly to the homeless.
What is the solution to the problem?
Because if it was easy, it would have been solved.
How do you take a 45 year old veteran with shizophrenia and addiction and get him off the streets, get him healthy and make him a productive member of society?
This shouldn't be a Democrats vs Republicans thing - this should be people coming together to try and solve this problem.
And it will be expensive to solve. Because you need a combination of social housing, substance support and treatment for people with mental health issues.
This is just one of many difficult-to-intractible problems, from healthcare, drugs, social decay, debt, infrastructure collapse, and so on, and so on that the USA now faces. So you can see why so many are beginning to think that the country is becoming ungovernable. Personally I am beginning to wonder if the US is going to be another version of Brazil only with an even bigger structural economic problem. A generation unused to sudden economic hardship could even plunge the country into a low level civil war.
Perhaps the greatest problem is that the systems and the structure of American politics have become so sclerotic and corrupt so rapidly. While I dont share the view often attributed to Clemanceau that the United States is "the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without the usual interval of civilization", the advent of entrenched Trumpism and his effective packing of the Supreme court is genuinely scary for anyone who believes in justice and democracy. Can they address this fundamental political crisis? If they can´t, then the outlook for the "free world" could be very grim indeed.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Japanese soft cooked egg, I think.
They just told me. It’s a guinea fowl egg poached super slowly over 45 minutes! It is fucking amazing
I don’t think it has to be guinea fowl but that’s what they used here. With guinea fowl ragu. Dreamy
Some of the best dishes I've ever had have been egg.
The great thing about eggs is that they don't work so well with wine. Eggs at breakfast are essential.
Kingsley Amis’ prescription for greasy food like fried eggs was cheap blended whisky with lots of water. It’s not bad - cuts through the grease.
Churchillian.
Queen Victoria used to mix red wine and whisky half and half so she could drink only one glass very slowly over a long meal, to avoid having to go to the toilet. Bet that tasted grim.
The US coasts, and particularly the West coast, have terrible homelessness problems.
You have large numbers of people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. They are also magnets for those without possessions: the streets of Minneapolis or Dallas or Anchorage are not friendly to the homeless.
What is the solution to the problem?
Because if it was easy, it would have been solved.
How do you take a 45 year old veteran with shizophrenia and addiction and get him off the streets, get him healthy and make him a productive member of society?
This shouldn't be a Democrats vs Republicans thing - this should be people coming together to try and solve this problem.
And it will be expensive to solve. Because you need a combination of social housing, substance support and treatment for people with mental health issues.
Yes, it's an incredibly difficult problem.
Successive American Presidents have courted popularity via tax cuts - perhaps it needs a courageous bi-partisan approach starting with the view that in 2021, it's almost obscene to tolerate such poverty in the midst of such plenty.
It needs a different approach to drug-related organised crime and violence - Washington has the most powerful military in the history of the planet yet its own citizens walk in fear in many cities.
It's these paradoxes which have always confounded me about America - a land of incredible, awesome beauty which sits alongside some grotesque aspects of human suffering and existence. I've seen it in Las Vegas where the journey from decadence to decay is the length of a storm drain.
I've heard it said Marxist-enforced equality is the worst of all worlds. Maybe but re-enforced inequality and the marginalisation of so many also seems pretty bad. I found San Francisco the most "alien" of cities with pan handlers and destitution on every corner yet the incredible beauty of the Bridge and the Bay on a fine autumn morning....
Some societies would drive the poor out of sight - America almost seems to want to show the world how its dream can be a nightmare.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.
If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.
If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.
I did not say it was chicken feed
I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care
It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment
Its not chicken feed?
Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.
If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.
The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care
I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care
I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about
If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.
If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?
Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information
As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge
I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary
If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.
That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..
Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.
Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.
I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element
The employee pays 1%
The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given
Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍
So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...
I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either? I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either? I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?
Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄
If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.
In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be
It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.
So you've been invited to the meeting as an observer? 😊
Fuck off. I'm not in the mood for your bullshit.
Lol my fault. I shouldn't be engaging with someone who has projected the dates when they will inherit as you appeared to do yesterday. It's all about the money for you. You really are vermin.
I'd rather not inherit a penny, but earn my own income with low taxes.
If people would rather have higher taxes and rely upon inheritances rather than their own efforts, there's nothing to respect about that.
What the fuck is onsen egg? I’m in an insanely posh Swiss restaurant doing a tasting menu and they’ve given me onsen egg
What even is it
Don't know. Sounds a bit woke. I do hope you're not put off your insanely posh dinner by your concerns for the zombified opioid-ridden citizens of Philadelphia.
Incidentally if you do want to spread tweets about the dismal state of the USA I'd pay more attention if they didn't emanate from Jack Posobiec. He's a fascist scumbag in all respects - race, Covid, you name it.
Or I can retweet who I like, and you can go fuck your tiny stupid effete little self with a deep fried Ticino riverpike
Why are you posting on here, let alone entering another random slanging match, whilst on holiday at a restaurant with a tasting menu? That is seriously weird.
Homesick :-) .
I want a report on an Onsen Goose Egg.
Personally I'm staying old-fashioned and having an Ostrich Burger, with home grown tomatoes, and a hegg.
Home grown spuds, Tweeddale venison burger, flat beans from the local community shop, and semolina pudding with a dollop of bramble jam for me. And a bit too much Australian red.
The US coasts, and particularly the West coast, have terrible homelessness problems.
You have large numbers of people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. They are also magnets for those without possessions: the streets of Minneapolis or Dallas or Anchorage are not friendly to the homeless.
What is the solution to the problem?
Because if it was easy, it would have been solved.
How do you take a 45 year old veteran with shizophrenia and addiction and get him off the streets, get him healthy and make him a productive member of society?
This shouldn't be a Democrats vs Republicans thing - this should be people coming together to try and solve this problem.
And it will be expensive to solve. Because you need a combination of social housing, substance support and treatment for people with mental health issues.
Finland has been trying some radical policy on homelessness, not sure how much it is costing them or if it is sustainable long term but reports seem very positive so far.
Wow;
Just reading about the Southernmost Homeless Assistance League (Shal)
They give you money and a bus ticket out of town, so long as you sign a contract "confirming their relocation will be “permanent” and acknowledging they will “no longer be eligible” for homeless services upon their return."
I think the first thing I would do to help solve the homeless problem is to ban States from offloading their problems onto their neighbours. In one thing if a homeless person heads to Philadelphia from Wischita, it's another if the State of Kansas pays to move him.
Comments
1. A government scheme where you pay £N thousand pounds or pledge £N+M thousand pounds from your estate and your costs are covered.
2. If you don't opt for 1. by a certain age then you take your chances and the residual figure you are allowed to keep before the state steps in should be around the current figure or even reduced.
A commission sets the costs for state funding and what £N and £M are over time.
This has the advantage of being voluntary and promoting the sharing of risk. Some tax support for those with little wealth required but no need for huge tax increases or NI surcharge.
I was at a typical Los Angeles dinner party last night, and everyone is on this Neighborhood app, which means that everyone believes there has been a unique and local massive increase in crime rates.
I suggested that everyone should join Neighborhood but to enter a zip code on the other side of the country. If you did this, you'd rapidly decide that your local area was incredibly safe compared to zip code xxxxx.
It's the same issue with the news and natural disasters. Everyone thinks there are more... but the reality is we just see the consequences of them much more than we used to.
Shocking
I want a report on an Onsen Goose Egg.
Personally I'm staying old-fashioned and having an Ostrich Burger, with home grown tomatoes, and a hegg.
Right, off for another round of golf before lunch with Melania and that Russian hooker from the Steele dossier who p1ssed all over me
2. Yes - very much so. Particularly JG's radio broadcast. Turgid and implausible anyway.
I'll stick with "magnificent and interesting" though.
The poverty there is even worse, because at least there are jobs in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. What's the solution to people living in falling down trailers, with no education and no nearby jobs?
BREAKING: Brazil vs Argentina has been suspended as the Brazilian Health Authorities have stormed onto the pitch to deport Emiliano Martinez, Giovani Lo Celso and Cristian Romero.
#avfc #thfc
https://twitter.com/samstreetwrites/status/1434595723509645315?s=21
https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/3/589/
Of course you can retweet who you like. And I can point out when you're retweeting fascist scum. It's a free world.
A new Halal butchers (the third or fourth) opens next Friday and while you could argue the diversity of shops isn't what it was, the street accurately reflects the considerable demographic and cultural changes of the last 15 years and the perhaps gratifying truth the business of buying and selling seems to transcend cultural boundaries and whether you ascribe that to modern capitalism or more ancient practices, it's what people do and seemingly what they like.
On that basis alone, reports of the death of retail are grossly over-exaggerated.
So lets be grateful we are still here with the opportunity to criticise Philip, HYUFD or even myself!
Indeed, you don’t deny it
On your argument the NHS is also stealing from taxpayers if you own property and use state healthcare
Here is the actual channel on YouTube. The individual drives round and round Philadelphia every few days.
https://youtu.be/mR1w5SyvBGo
Its a whole sub-genre of YouTube, "portraying real life in x city in US". There is 1000s and 1000s of hours of footage.
The food here is actually amazing. And I normally hate tasting menus. But this is top notch
But the video is the video. That is a real video of the streets of philly, and I’ve seen similar from many other American cities. The USA is heading into a bad place and neither party seems willing to address the problems, head on. They’d rather bicker about Woke or Whiteness
I am happy to agree that the republicans are probably worse, right now. Trump is a lunatic. But Biden is not much better. Afghanistan has been a shameful disaster for him
Awfulness on awfulness
However, if you are wealthy and live in the suburbs, you’re fine because you can drive past it and avoid having to deal with any of these people.
ETA page 2, pars 3 and 4.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf
There is homelessness and drug issues in UK cities, but in some parts of the US it is a total different order of magnitude.
Had that at some 3 star gaff in the dordogne
https://abacusdata.ca/election-2021-week-3-liberals-conservatives-tied/
The changes from last week are very small and well within Margin of Error. The Conservatives seem to have done well out of the first debate but again nothing decisive.
In Ontario, the Liberals lead 36-35, in British Columbia the NDP lead 32-30 with the Liberals and Conservatives tied for second and in Quebec the Liberals and BQ are tied at 31. The Conservatives have huge leads in Alberta (26 points) and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (32 points).
Remember, just under three quarters of the Canadian ridings are in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia (243 ridings out of 338).
Those who don't can simply work as the peasants they are to pay tax to provide for the lucky few to inherit.
It always had an issue, but the last 18 months have been really bad.
Some of this is not their fault (other cities bussing their homeless to LA is pretty fucked up). Some is covid related. And some is deeper issues.
People also pay taxes for everyone to use the NHS or state education even if those users own their own home
I saw it. With my own eyes. Two years ago in Venice LA.
it’s often been a sketchy area, rising and falling, but now it is fucking scary throughout, even at 11am. Or it was for me and the wife. Not nice. Not nice at all
https://www.extremaratio.com/prodotti/cucina-tavola/coltelli-da-tavola/cofanetto-sheffield-type-6-pz.html?___store=en
The closest equivalent i would say is parts of Stoke where a particular unique variant of monkey dust is widely used. There is also the spice use in some towns. But again, different order of magnitude.
O'Toole's ratings have risen strongly through the campaign and there's a growing view in the wider electorate the Conservatives CAN win.
I would also note the non-rolling polls have a statistical tie between the Liberals and Conservatives but the NDP are scoring 3-4 points higher than in the daily rolling polls.
I know it's statistically unlikely but I was musing on the possibility of a tie in seats between the Liberals and Conservatives.
I fear the only choice, eventually, will be Singapore style zero tolerance. Legalization does not work with the new opioids. They are too ‘good’. Where America is leading (sadly) others will follow. Cf obesity
We will have to hang drug dealers and put junkies in jail for decades
There is currently a phenomenon of wage inflation due to shortage of staff and full employment (lorry drivers being the most talked about example)
So the NI increase is just government taking a cut of this.
Revenue for the treasury and helps curb inflation.
So Trudeau will fail to get the majority he wanted but should remain PM
https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-1947-ELXN44-Nightly-Tracking-Report-2021-09-04.pdf
You have large numbers of people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse issues. They are also magnets for those without possessions: the streets of Minneapolis or Dallas or Anchorage are not friendly to the homeless.
What is the solution to the problem?
Because if it was easy, it would have been solved.
How do you take a 45 year old veteran with shizophrenia and addiction and get him off the streets, get him healthy and make him a productive member of society?
This shouldn't be a Democrats vs Republicans thing - this should be people coming together to try and solve this problem.
And it will be expensive to solve. Because you need a combination of social housing, substance support and treatment for people with mental health issues.
Two things need to happen - first Labour needs to stand up for workers and subsequently Tory voting workers need to be more open to voting Labour/LD. I just doubt Labour take the first step, if they do they might be surprised.
https://twitter.com/blackdiasporav1/status/1429998253391581190
Of course, it should be a non-partisan thing. But just like a vaccine roll-out during a pandemic, it becomes partisan when one side is completely fucking nuts and celebrates horse de-wormer as a cure instead.
Aroma of vanilla with lemon notes, hint of woodiness, schizoid affective disorder finish.
Is that the logic behind this ? (not saying I agree with it!)
I take @ydoethur s other point about inflation on board, it probably isn't conceived as a way of beating inflation.
Perhaps the greatest problem is that the systems and the structure of American politics have become so sclerotic and corrupt so rapidly. While I dont share the view often attributed to Clemanceau that the United States is "the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without the usual interval of civilization", the advent of entrenched Trumpism and his effective packing of the Supreme court is genuinely scary for anyone who believes in justice and democracy. Can they address this fundamental political crisis? If they can´t, then the outlook for the "free world" could be very grim indeed.
Successive American Presidents have courted popularity via tax cuts - perhaps it needs a courageous bi-partisan approach starting with the view that in 2021, it's almost obscene to tolerate such poverty in the midst of such plenty.
It needs a different approach to drug-related organised crime and violence - Washington has the most powerful military in the history of the planet yet its own citizens walk in fear in many cities.
It's these paradoxes which have always confounded me about America - a land of incredible, awesome beauty which sits alongside some grotesque aspects of human suffering and existence. I've seen it in Las Vegas where the journey from decadence to decay is the length of a storm drain.
I've heard it said Marxist-enforced equality is the worst of all worlds. Maybe but re-enforced inequality and the marginalisation of so many also seems pretty bad. I found San Francisco the most "alien" of cities with pan handlers and destitution on every corner yet the incredible beauty of the Bridge and the Bay on a fine autumn morning....
Some societies would drive the poor out of sight - America almost seems to want to show the world how its dream can be a nightmare.
If people would rather have higher taxes and rely upon inheritances rather than their own efforts, there's nothing to respect about that.
Just reading about the Southernmost Homeless Assistance League (Shal)
They give you money and a bus ticket out of town, so long as you sign a contract "confirming their relocation will be “permanent” and acknowledging they will “no longer be eligible” for homeless services upon their return."
I think the first thing I would do to help solve the homeless problem is to ban States from offloading their problems onto their neighbours. In one thing if a homeless person heads to Philadelphia from Wischita, it's another if the State of Kansas pays to move him.