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.
There is a lot that can be done with state and urban money - which, when it comes to LA / SF or Boston, is entirely in the hands of Democrat controlled legislatures, whether at state or city level.
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.
Yes I'm vermin for trying to talk my parents into writing me out of the will and giving it away to charity. Wanker. Your whole life is based around self preservation. Until recently you wanted permanent lockdown for young people so you could feel safe in pubs. You're the most selfish person I've come across in this place, you've only ever been about what's in it for you. Your defined benefit pension that you "worked hard for" is being paid by the productivity of current employees. Your whole life seems to be about measuring success by how much money someone does or doesn't make. You are frankly a disgusting person and I'm sorry that I've had the misfortune of meeting you in person at previous PB meetups.
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...
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.
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.
There is a lot that can be done with state and urban money - which, when it comes to LA / SF or Boston, is entirely in the hands of Democrat controlled legislatures, whether at state or city level.
At the same time, you have to acknowledge that a large number of those homeless are not actually from Los Angeles.
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?
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
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary origin of fentanyl into the States is China.
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
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.
Yes I'm vermin for trying to talk my parents into writing me out of the will and giving it away to charity. Wanker. Your whole life is based around self preservation. Until recently you wanted permanent lockdown for young people so you could feel safe in pubs. You're the most selfish person I've come across in this place, you've only ever been about what's in it for you. Your defined benefit pension that you "worked hard for" is being paid by the productivity of current employees. Your whole life seems to be about measuring success by how much money someone does or doesn't make. You are frankly a disgusting person and I'm sorry that I've had the misfortune of meeting you in person at previous PB meetups.
Looks like we are struggling to meet a common ground here. Best not to engage any further.
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.
There is a lot that can be done with state and urban money - which, when it comes to LA / SF or Boston, is entirely in the hands of Democrat controlled legislatures, whether at state or city level.
At the same time, you have to acknowledge that a large number of those homeless are not actually from Los Angeles.
Absolutely. They are attracted to it by a combination of great weather and indulgent city authorities that turn a blind eye. If you have to be homeless, Santa Monica has to be top of your list.
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.
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...
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.
There is a lot that can be done with state and urban money - which, when it comes to LA / SF or Boston, is entirely in the hands of Democrat controlled legislatures, whether at state or city level.
At the same time, you have to acknowledge that a large number of those homeless are not actually from Los Angeles.
Absolutely. They are attracted to it by a combination of great weather and indulgent city authorities that turn a blind eye. If you have to be homeless, Santa Monica has to be top of your list.
And the more you do to solve homelessness - like providing accommodation for the homeless - the more you attract them.
Basically, it pays to go down the Swiss route and ban rough sleeping.
Of course, it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else, and allows you to feel proud that Santa Monica has the problem, and not your city.
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
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary origin of fentanyl into the States is China.
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
I don't believe this is true anymore. It is made by the cartels in Mexico. Now the base chemicals still come from China, but then that is true of a massive part of the worlds chemical production in general (and again something the west has again become too over reliant on...many medical drugs rely on Chinese manufacturing for key core chemicals, where they completely control the market).
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.
There is a dessert fork? Ugg.
And it's a class indicator. Nothing more bourgeois than eating your pudding with a spoon alone. Has to be a fork, or fork plus spoon.
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
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary origin of fentanyl into the States is China.
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
I'm sure this is correct - from their perspective, it's karmic payback.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone starts with fentanyl. Most people get hooked via the Sacklers.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
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.
There is a dessert fork? Ugg.
And it's a class indicator. Nothing more bourgeois than eating your pudding with a spoon alone. Has to be a fork, or fork plus spoon.
is it a class indicator if you use a dessert fork whilst wearing Uggs?
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.
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.
The USA *ought* to be so good. A very high GDP per head, a vigorous legal and political culture, some brillaint universities, great scientitss. Yet, something has gone very wrong in that country.
Something has gone very wrong in much of the West, but it seems most acute in the USA.
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.
The USA *ought* to be so good. A very high GDP per head, a vigorous legal and political culture, some brillaint universities, great scientitss. Yet, something has gone very wrong in that country.
Something has gone very wrong in much of the West, but it seems most acute in the USA.
One thing is for sure. It’s not socialism or the welfare state causing the problems in the US.
And it's a class indicator. Nothing more bourgeois than eating your pudding with a spoon alone. Has to be a fork, or fork plus spoon.
Depends on the pudding
Yes, I can't imagine the pudding which needs two items of cutlery to take it on. "Rather too much gristle in the blancmange" (Sir Henry at Rawlinson End).
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
And it's a class indicator. Nothing more bourgeois than eating your pudding with a spoon alone. Has to be a fork, or fork plus spoon.
Depends on the pudding
Yes, I can't imagine the pudding which needs two items of cutlery to take it on. "Rather too much gristle in the blancmange" (Sir Henry at Rawlinson End).
Fresh orange. Or the one that flies across the room .
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? 🙄
Wages are set by the market. If you don’t pay enough you don’t get staff. People have been seeing that recently.
Social costs are on top. If a company can’t afford a fully loaded cost they don’t hire anyone.
If social costs go down wages do not go up automatically
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.
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.
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.
There is a lot that can be done with state and urban money - which, when it comes to LA / SF or Boston, is entirely in the hands of Democrat controlled legislatures, whether at state or city level.
At the same time, you have to acknowledge that a large number of those homeless are not actually from Los Angeles.
Absolutely. They are attracted to it by a combination of great weather and indulgent city authorities that turn a blind eye. If you have to be homeless, Santa Monica has to be top of your list.
And the more you do to solve homelessness - like providing accommodation for the homeless - the more you attract them.
Basically, it pays to go down the Swiss route and ban rough sleeping.
Of course, it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else, and allows you to feel proud that Santa Monica has the problem, and not your city.
Indeed. However, and it is not somethjng that is fashionable these days, it often needs the individual to do something about it.
One of my wife’s uncles was in this situation. Served in Vietnam, came back home, got into drugs, was kicked out of the house, lived for 20+ years homeless in LA but what got him out of that was he decided he wanted to get himself clean. Took a lot of courage, strength, time and had mishaps. But he got himself there eventually.
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
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary origin of fentanyl into the States is China.
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
I'm sure this is correct - from their perspective, it's karmic payback.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone starts with fentanyl. Most people get hooked via the Sacklers.
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
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
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.
Fried egg on buttered toast, with a liquid yolk.
Simply wonderful, and a staple of mine since student days. Cheap, quick and easy, albeit light on some vitamins.
Excellent, especially with Salt (not so healthy) and pepper.
On a diet, a poached egg with a soft yolk on unbuttered toast is tolerable, breaking the yolk with a knife and using it like a sauce. Salt is essential for this one, though.
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
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary origin of fentanyl into the States is China.
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
I don't believe this is true anymore. It is made by the cartels in Mexico. Now the base chemicals still come from China, but then that is true of a massive part of the worlds chemical production in general (and again something the west has again become too over reliant on...many medical drugs rely on Chinese manufacturing for key core chemicals, where they completely control the market).
According to the Brookings Institute, it’s still China but, yes, Mexico the other key country
Absolutely. They are attracted to it by a combination of great weather and indulgent city authorities that turn a blind eye. If you have to be homeless, Santa Monica has to be top of your list.
We're trying to find solutions to intractable problems but instead all we get is a dig at the Democrats and "indulgent" city authorities.
Is there a scintilla of evidence IF the Republicans ran Los Angeles or Baltimore or Philadelphia, the problems of housing, drugs and the associated mental and physical impacts would somehow be alleviated?
I'd love to know how the Republicans would alleviate these problems - seriously.
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
You completely fail to understand the nature of conservatism. Not a surprise since I believe you were born after Thatcher was in power.
Conservatism is about the preservation of the best in society. It accepts that society will change over time, but it likes to slow the pace of change so that it can be executed in a cautious and deliberate matter. It seeks a society in which everyone has a stake and everyone can and does make a contribution.
There are those in society who, by good fortune and/or hard work, will have greater material wealth. But with wealth comes responsibility to contribute.
There is nothing in that about hoarding money for yourself and your immediate family.
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
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary origin of fentanyl into the States is China.
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
I'm sure this is correct - from their perspective, it's karmic payback.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone starts with fentanyl. Most people get hooked via the Sacklers.
Yes, they should have been hammered
Yes, but so should have the entire US regulatory, medical and insurance industries. The answer to anyone who comes along and says Hey, please licence my new non addictive opiate painkiller is, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Don't even have to run tests to know 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
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.
Fried egg on buttered toast, with a liquid yolk.
Simply wonderful, and a staple of mine since student days. Cheap, quick and easy, albeit light on some vitamins.
I'd add a slice of Stornoway black pudding ...
I had black pudding as part of an end of holiday fry up for dinner. Egg on toast as above, back bacon and baked beans.
Back on the Fearnley Whittingstall diet tommorow, beginning to crave kambucha, kimchi, and lots of veg after a fortnight being fed by relatives on the Isle of Wight. I don't think I could cope with more pringles and BBQ.
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? 🙄
Wages are set by the market. If you don’t pay enough you don’t get staff. People have been seeing that recently.
Social costs are on top. If a company can’t afford a fully loaded cost they don’t hire anyone.
If social costs go down wages do not go up automatically
Not automatically no, anymore than if petrol duty goes down the price of petrol goes down automatically.
But the market does take into account taxes and anyone who thinks it doesn't is either pushing an agenda or in denial.
Absolutely. They are attracted to it by a combination of great weather and indulgent city authorities that turn a blind eye. If you have to be homeless, Santa Monica has to be top of your list.
We're trying to find solutions to intractable problems but instead all we get is a dig at the Democrats and "indulgent" city authorities.
Is there a scintilla of evidence IF the Republicans ran Los Angeles or Baltimore or Philadelphia, the problems of housing, drugs and the associated mental and physical impacts would somehow be alleviated?
I'd love to know how the Republicans would alleviate these problems - seriously.
It’s not a dig, it is stating a fact. One half of it (the weather) isn’t even political. Maybe @rcs1000 has a different take as he is actually over there. But my wife’s sister lives in LA, is a Bernie supporter and even she says it’s being allowed to get out of control.
Would Republicans sort the problem out? No idea although, in places like Santa Monica, one issue is that rent control has distorted the market no end (same with San Fran).
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
Correct me if I’m wrong but the primary origin of fentanyl into the States is China.
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
I'm sure this is correct - from their perspective, it's karmic payback.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone starts with fentanyl. Most people get hooked via the Sacklers.
Yes, they should have been hammered
Yes, but so should have the entire US regulatory, medical and insurance industries. The answer to anyone who comes along and says Hey, please licence my new non addictive opiate painkiller is, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Don't even have to run tests to know that
Yes, the insurance companies have a great responsibility. They were extremely keen on using opiates because it was so much cheaper than expensive physical therapy.
I agree with Charles that parts of Philly like Kensington have been extremely bad since at least the 80s.
While I’d agree that for the most part there’s little in the UK that is quite as bad as the worst areas in the US, there are some that approach it. Personally I’ve been to parts of the South Wales valleys and Mansfield in Nottinghamshire that have come close.
Absolutely. They are attracted to it by a combination of great weather and indulgent city authorities that turn a blind eye. If you have to be homeless, Santa Monica has to be top of your list.
We're trying to find solutions to intractable problems but instead all we get is a dig at the Democrats and "indulgent" city authorities.
Is there a scintilla of evidence IF the Republicans ran Los Angeles or Baltimore or Philadelphia, the problems of housing, drugs and the associated mental and physical impacts would somehow be alleviated?
I'd love to know how the Republicans would alleviate these problems - seriously.
The evidence of Appalachia and the Deep South is that Republicans haven't got the answer either.
As Kurt Vonnegut once said "being poor in America isn't a crime, but it might as well be"
@Charles 's notion that taxes don't affect prices, because companies just don't spend if the tax is too high, and the market sets prices is self-evidently illogical. As that's exactly how the market works - which feed through to price changes.
If companies decide they can't afford to hire because of higher taxes, then they step out of the market. That means there's less demand for labour. If there's less demand for labour, then there's less competition. The market price for labour goes down because people can't go to a competitor for a better salary.
Thus the end result is the same thing. Taxes go up, means prices get affected. Its the same whether you're talking about wages, fuel, alcohol, tobacco or anything else.
All taxes affect the market, so to say the market sets the price instead of the tax is self-contradictory nonsense. Unless you think for some reason you've invented a tax that for some reason unlike all other taxes magically won't affect the marketplace.
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.
There’s a brilliant quote in Orwell’s Down and Out where he says ‘the key to being a successful restaurant is really sharp knives’ so every customer thinks all the meat is super tender and refined
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
You completely fail to understand the nature of conservatism. Not a surprise since I believe you were born after Thatcher was in power.
Conservatism is about the preservation of the best in society. It accepts that society will change over time, but it likes to slow the pace of change so that it can be executed in a cautious and deliberate matter. It seeks a society in which everyone has a stake and everyone can and does make a contribution.
There are those in society who, by good fortune and/or hard work, will have greater material wealth. But with wealth comes responsibility to contribute.
There is nothing in that about hoarding money for yourself and your immediate family.
No I was born when Thatcher was in power.
As you are often more a 19th century Liberal than a traditional Tory no surprise at your comments but the fact remains the whole point of the Tory Party has to been to preserve estates and wealth from its original origins as the party of the landed gentry on.
However the whole point of the argument that people should be able to sell their main asset, their property, to fund social care at home in the last years of their life is not merely a contribution, it is loss of most of their estate and an asset which they built up to pass to their children.
We are happy for other peoples' taxes to pay for those with property to use the NHS or state education, no reason the same principle could not also apply to at home social care
Although she's been sick for a while, its still pretty shocking and horrible to have someone my own age die from natural causes like that.
Normally when a young celebrity dies its due to an accident/drugs/suicide or something else self-inflicted not cancer.
Horrible to think even in this day and age, even with the best medicine available, that just 39 can be a natural age for death of natural causes.
I agree with you Philip. It is quite tragic and I feel sorry for her family. It's not the natural order for you to have to bury your sons or daughters.
Meanwhile, putting eggs to one side briefly, over at U-turn news...
Neil Henderson @hendopolis I: Tory panic over tax grab plan to fund social care #TomorrowsPapersToday
Time to see what Boris is really made of. Was he just kite flying? Will he come out and fight for the plan? Does he have a backup ready to go?
I don't agree, generally, that you should try a policy simply for the purpose of trying to do something. But on this occasion it's been left long enough that trying something, anything, is probably the right move, if only to get things moving.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
Rolling Stone uses a quote from a doctor to manufacture an ultra viral story. One phone call would've confirmed the doctor's story was false. Apparently, clicks are more important than basic journalism.
Meanwhile, putting eggs to one side briefly, over at U-turn news...
Neil Henderson @hendopolis I: Tory panic over tax grab plan to fund social care #TomorrowsPapersToday
Time to see what Boris is really made of. Was he just kite flying? Will he come out and fight for the plan? Does he have a backup ready to go?
I don't agree, generally, that you should try a policy simply for the purpose of trying to do something. But on this occasion it's been left long enough that trying something, anything, is probably the right move, if only to get things moving.
Yep a land value tax replacing the social care preset part of the Council tax
Let's be frank we've now been discussing this for 3 days here and it's the only thing no one has not found big issues with
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
So a land value tax is the perfect solution for them - low value property so low tax
On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
Meanwhile Telegraph leads on tory revolt against NI tax.
As Johnson says he considers the paper "his boss", the u-turn must be close.
Looks to me like the social care crisis will still not be solved at the next GE.
Pathetic.
I don't entirely blame Johnson, the entire political class has fucked this up for at least a decade.
You don't solve "the social care crisis" by increasing taxes on people who don't own homes and are struggling to make ends meet - just so others can have a bigger inheritance.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
So a land value tax is the perfect solution for them - low value property so low tax
I am not a great fan of that either but I would certainly prefer that to taking any property over just £100,000 value of someone who needed at home social care
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
Meanwhile, putting eggs to one side briefly, over at U-turn news...
Neil Henderson @hendopolis I: Tory panic over tax grab plan to fund social care #TomorrowsPapersToday
Time to see what Boris is really made of. Was he just kite flying? Will he come out and fight for the plan? Does he have a backup ready to go?
I don't agree, generally, that you should try a policy simply for the purpose of trying to do something. But on this occasion it's been left long enough that trying something, anything, is probably the right move, if only to get things moving.
Yep a land value tax replacing the social care preset part of the Council tax
Let's be frank we've now been discussing this for 3 days here and it's the only thing no one has not found big issues with
A land value tax, paid by the owner of the property not the tenant, should replace the entirety of Council Tax not just social care preset.
It would also at a stroke eliminate all the exceptions to Council Tax because people are too poor to pay, or because they refuse to pay so the Council needs to get an attachment of earnings order etc
Meanwhile Telegraph leads on tory revolt against NI tax.
As Johnson says he considers the paper "his boss", the u-turn must be close.
Looks to me like the social care crisis will still not be solved at the next GE.
Pathetic.
I don't entirely blame Johnson, the entire political class has fucked this up for at least a decade.
You don't solve "the social care crisis" by increasing taxes on people who don't own homes and are struggling to make ends meet - just so others can have a bigger inheritance.
Agreed.
I was merely pointing out that another clever wheeze to fund the problem was about to crash and burn.
I am against NI as the answer unless NI is reformed to include working people over the pension age and in addition there is a reform of pension tax offsets.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
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.
No I didn't mean that. It was just imo a good post. Ditto your one on social media.
On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.
Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.
America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.
We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
Unearned windfalls should bloody well be taxed. That doesn't mean they were earned in the first place.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?
Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?
The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.
On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so gross.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
Indeed the mythical "American Dream"* is part of the reason that so many of the poor are so destitute, not just financially, but morally and psychologically. Most countries have inequalities, and most other developed countries more substantial safety nets, but in America there is seen to be personal failure in being poor. The myth that anyone can succeed in America if they work hard has a dark flipside. If you fail to be wealthy, it is because you are a failure as a person. In few other countries are the poor looked down on in that way.
*though as we know, social mobility is higher in most of Western Europe than America.
On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.
Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.
America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.
We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.
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 USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.
Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.
America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.
We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
Yes there is. Don't be silly. 60% of completely free money, is still free money. Mind you, inheritance seems to me a pretty neutral way of acquiring money, in that you get it by virtue of just existing, whereas lots of self made rich people made themselves by being complete and utter c-nts.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?
Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?
The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.
The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.
The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '
Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one
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.
However the impact is not quite so immediate and direct.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?
Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?
The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.
But you have gone on and on and bloody on about how it is OK for countries to break promises in international treaties, because realpolitik. What is your beef here?
On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.
Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.
America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.
We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.
Thanks for correcting me, as ever.
You're welcome.
Do you disagree with what I had to say?
I just disagree with your certainty that you're right about everything.
On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.
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.
However the impact is not quite so immediate and direct.
No it may not be immediate, but the impact is ultimately every bit as real. Its a direct tax and direct taxes have consequences.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?
Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?
The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.
The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.
The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '
Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one
Precisely. The manifesto was utterly incoherent and the PM was allowed to get away with it. It was a tax and spend programme that only outlined the spend bit. How it was to be funded was never questioned.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?
Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?
The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.
But you have gone on and on and bloody on about how it is OK for countries to break promises in international treaties, because realpolitik. What is your beef here?
Absolutely its 'OK' as in possible for countries to break promises, and its 'OK' as in possible for parties to break manifesto promises too. One thing I have never denied in any of those debates is that actions have consequences.
The difference is I am no party loyalist. I don't back the "no tax rises" pledge because its in the manifesto - I support the manifesto because it contains a no tax rise pledge that I back. If the party is going to turn its back on what I want, then its turning its back on my vote too.
I only have one vote, but everyone can decide where their line is drawn and this is my line. Cross it, and lose my support.
HYUFD though has gone from no rise to "no more than 1%" rise just because the party line has moved. My line is my own, not the parties.
Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:
Make an 'x' in one box only:
[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.
[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.
This is the free market solution.
I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives
So, you think we should have a third box?
[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.
Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.
No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it
Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?
It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?
Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?
The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.
The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.
The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '
Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one
Precisely. The manifesto was utterly incoherent and the PM was allowed to get away with it. It was a tax and spend programme that only outlined the spend bit. How it was to be funded was never questioned.
Exactly! Starmer is such a weak LOTO. Corbyn, Mcdon, etc would never have Boris to get away with that.
On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.
Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.
America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.
We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.
Thanks for correcting me, as ever.
You're welcome.
Do you disagree with what I had to say?
I just disagree with your certainty that you're right about everything.
On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.
If you think that Trump was a capitalist I think that's part of the issue.
Trump is no capitalist. He's a mercantilist, there's a massive difference.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z2DtNW79sQ&ab_channel=BruceSpringsteenVEVO
Now, call me a cynic but, if I was China and seeing what was happening in the States with fentanyl and how it is wrecking society, I might be tempted to turn a blind eye to its production and export. I might even say it’s payback for the Opium Wars of the 19th Century even if the U.K. was the main protagonist.
Good job he's not here.
Basically, it pays to go down the Swiss route and ban rough sleeping.
Of course, it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else, and allows you to feel proud that Santa Monica has the problem, and not your city.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone starts with fentanyl. Most people get hooked via the Sacklers.
Something has gone very wrong in much of the West, but it seems most acute in the USA.
It’s bollocks, always has been bollocks and always will be bollocks
Company budget for fully loaded costs. That doesn’t mean that an increase in employers NI will lead to a reduction in wages
Social costs are on top. If a company can’t afford a fully loaded cost they don’t hire anyone.
If social costs go down wages do not go up automatically
Beginning to think there is a plan here where Johnson falls back to some other source of tax.
Simply wonderful, and a staple of mine since student days. Cheap, quick and easy, albeit light on some vitamins.
One of my wife’s uncles was in this situation. Served in Vietnam, came back home, got into drugs, was kicked out of the house, lived for 20+ years homeless in LA but what got him out of that was he decided he wanted to get himself clean. Took a lot of courage, strength, time and had mishaps. But he got himself there eventually.
On a diet, a poached egg with a soft yolk on unbuttered toast is tolerable, breaking the yolk with a knife and using it like a sauce. Salt is essential for this one, though.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/fentanyl-and-geopolitics-controlling-opioid-supply-from-china/?amp
Is there a scintilla of evidence IF the Republicans ran Los Angeles or Baltimore or Philadelphia, the problems of housing, drugs and the associated mental and physical impacts would somehow be alleviated?
I'd love to know how the Republicans would alleviate these problems - seriously.
Conservatism is about the preservation of the best in society. It accepts that society will change over time, but it likes to slow the pace of change so that it can be executed in a cautious and deliberate matter. It seeks a society in which everyone has a stake and everyone can and does make a contribution.
There are those in society who, by good fortune and/or hard work, will have greater material wealth. But with wealth comes responsibility to contribute.
There is nothing in that about hoarding money for yourself and your immediate family.
Brexit has caused awful staff shortages across the USA too.
Back on the Fearnley Whittingstall diet tommorow, beginning to crave kambucha, kimchi, and lots of veg after a fortnight being fed by relatives on the Isle of Wight. I don't think I could cope with more pringles and BBQ.
But the market does take into account taxes and anyone who thinks it doesn't is either pushing an agenda or in denial.
Would Republicans sort the problem out? No idea although, in places like Santa Monica, one issue is that rent control has distorted the market no end (same with San Fran).
While I’d agree that for the most part there’s little in the UK that is quite as bad as the worst areas in the US, there are some that approach it. Personally I’ve been to parts of the South Wales valleys and Mansfield in Nottinghamshire that have come close.
As Kurt Vonnegut once said "being poor in America isn't a crime, but it might as well be"
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
I: Tory panic over tax grab plan to fund social care #TomorrowsPapersToday
If companies decide they can't afford to hire because of higher taxes, then they step out of the market. That means there's less demand for labour. If there's less demand for labour, then there's less competition. The market price for labour goes down because people can't go to a competitor for a better salary.
Thus the end result is the same thing. Taxes go up, means prices get affected. Its the same whether you're talking about wages, fuel, alcohol, tobacco or anything else.
All taxes affect the market, so to say the market sets the price instead of the tax is self-contradictory nonsense. Unless you think for some reason you've invented a tax that for some reason unlike all other taxes magically won't affect the marketplace.
Normally when a young celebrity dies its due to an accident/drugs/suicide or something else self-inflicted not cancer.
Horrible to think even in this day and age, even with the best medicine available, that just 39 can be a natural age for death of natural causes.
As you are often more a 19th century Liberal than a traditional Tory no surprise at your comments but the fact remains the whole point of the Tory Party has to been to preserve estates and wealth from its original origins as the party of the landed gentry on.
However the whole point of the argument that people should be able to sell their main asset, their property, to fund social care at home in the last years of their life is not merely a contribution, it is loss of most of their estate and an asset which they built up to pass to their children.
We are happy for other peoples' taxes to pay for those with property to use the NHS or state education, no reason the same principle could not also apply to at home social care
I don't agree, generally, that you should try a policy simply for the purpose of trying to do something. But on this occasion it's been left long enough that trying something, anything, is probably the right move, if only to get things moving.
It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017
https://twitter.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1434520528690110472
Fake news!!
Rolling Stone uses a quote from a doctor to manufacture an ultra viral story. One phone call would've confirmed the doctor's story was false. Apparently, clicks are more important than basic journalism.
Also, the photo they used is from January
Let's be frank we've now been discussing this for 3 days here and it's the only thing no one has not found big issues with
As Johnson says he considers the paper "his boss", the u-turn must be close.
Looks to me like the social care crisis will still not be solved at the next GE.
Pathetic.
I don't entirely blame Johnson, the entire political class has fucked this up for at least a decade.
The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.
You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.
It would also at a stroke eliminate all the exceptions to Council Tax because people are too poor to pay, or because they refuse to pay so the Council needs to get an attachment of earnings order etc
I was merely pointing out that another clever wheeze to fund the problem was about to crash and burn.
I am against NI as the answer unless NI is reformed to include working people over the pension age and in addition there is a reform of pension tax offsets.
I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too
Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.
America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.
We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.
Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?
The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.
*though as we know, social mobility is higher in most of Western Europe than America.
Do you disagree with what I had to say?
The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '
Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one
On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.
It was a tax and spend programme that only outlined the spend bit. How it was to be funded was never questioned.
Good.
The difference is I am no party loyalist. I don't back the "no tax rises" pledge because its in the manifesto - I support the manifesto because it contains a no tax rise pledge that I back. If the party is going to turn its back on what I want, then its turning its back on my vote too.
I only have one vote, but everyone can decide where their line is drawn and this is my line. Cross it, and lose my support.
HYUFD though has gone from no rise to "no more than 1%" rise just because the party line has moved. My line is my own, not the parties.
Trump is no capitalist. He's a mercantilist, there's a massive difference.