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.
Are you having a laugh? Corbyn's 2017 manifesto was the biggest magic money tree wish list in history, whereas May's was too tightly costed and detailed without any regards for whether any of it was popular. Hence she lost her majority and Boris followed the magic money tree route to beat Corbyn at his own game in 2019
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.
Of course Johnson could get away with it because his opponent was the utterly witless Corbyn who was too busy checking the situation with respect to whether the coffee was fair trade at the student coffee mornings for Palestine in Canterbury to be bothered fronting an actual press conference to question the government over its manifesto.
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
You are absolutely right HY, I totally support you. What is the government supposed to do with massive waiting lists cause of Covid on top of already underfunded social care, just ignore it? You will find it an easier sell on the doorstep, people on here only think of what’s good or bad for them, not what they can do for their community, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, the essence of social care, the people in pain or danger on astronomical waiting lists.
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.
Yep. But how I'd put it is you are overplaying a card. It's an 8 of diamonds not a queen of spades.
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.
Yep. But how I'd put it is you are overplaying a card. It's an 8 of diamonds not a queen of spades.
Taxes have consequences. We've already had people on here saying they're reviewing pay reviews in light of this proposed tax. I've set wages myself and absolutely the tax was included in the calculations for salary reviews.
Just because a tax may take until the next pay review to take effect, doesn't mean it doesn't take effect. 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
No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
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.
Every Labour activist should play this Alan Johnson clip every evening until they get the message.
'Corbyn was a disaster on the doorstep... everyone knew he couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag'.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
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
He might win the next election - indeed I fear so - but he won't be PM until 2054.
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
You are absolutely right HY, I totally support you. What is the government supposed to do with massive waiting lists cause of Covid on top of already underfunded social care, just ignore it? You will find it an easier sell on the doorstep, people on here only think of what’s good or bad for them, not what they can do for their community, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, the essence of social care, the people in pain or danger on astronomical waiting lists.
Provide the money for the NHS and keep taxes low and grow the economy out of the economic mess.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then tax receipts will go up without any tax rises.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then the government will spend less on eg universal credit etc automatically without any tax rises or cuts to welfare.
Sunak trying to ensure all the new money is not swallowed by the NHS leaving nothing for social care says Times.
Good.
Raising the obvious question. If it isn't, then where will it swallow from?
To be honest, one of the problems of NHS funding has always been the stop-go aspect. After years of cheese paring "Cost Improvement Plans" we get splashed a bunch of cash, with instant results wanted. It just doesn't work like that. It's the management by financial bulimia.
Far better would be gradual, planned permanent expansion. Invest in building operating theatres and postgraduate training and there will be real extra capacity. Or just splurge the money on overtime, WLI payments and private outsourcing, and end up with no extra capacity and exhausted burnt out staff. My money is on the latter...
Revolts are inevitable. What will be interesting is the reason given. If someone relies purely on breach of manifesto that is seriously underwhelming and weak, since everyone knows breaches can be justifiable, and they would be avoiding the question of why they don't think it is in this case. Going on record that it is a bad plan would be more notable.
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
He might win the next election - indeed I fear so - but he won't be PM until 2054.
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
No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
It would always be toxic, any policy taking the value of the family home over just £100k for at home social care would be deeply unpopular. I bear the scars, I was campaigning in 2017 in a marginal seat and had doors slammed in my face after that policy was announced. I have campaigned in most general elections since 1997 and I have never seen voters as angry with me as a Tory canvasser as they were the week after the dementia tax was announced, even in 1997 and 2001. Even just 1 focus group would have told her it was political suicide, hence she could not do it and Boris and I expect Starmer too will not touch it again with a bargepole.
May went from heading for a near landslide to losing her majority because of that policy, it was that unpopular
One of the key issues with US is formal education....far too much of it is piss poor.
They got away with it a lot when they had huge manufacturing plants, mines, etc.
The best education in the US includes going to a world leading university. But it falls off really quickly. High school standards are far below Western Europe, and whole generations that didn't even pass that (or barely). In the 60-80s, that wasn't as much of a handicap if you were willing to work, there were factory jobs that paid well and at least for white folks could result in "an american dream".
Now, that just doesn't fly. If you don't have at least a college degree, you are going to be stuck in cycle of minimum wage jobs.
That then just magnifies the historical racial and wealth inequality. And more than ever is a huge barrier to any social mobility...and also why you can convince large numbers nonsense that Trump was pushing, now all the anti-vaxxer stuff, and all manner of other nonsense that adds to the chaos.
My suggestion for care costs: 1. A government scheme where you pay £N thousand pounds or pledge £N+M thousand pounds from your estate and your costs are covered. 2. If you don't opt for 1. by a certain age then you take your chances and the residual figure you are allowed to keep before the state steps in should be around the current figure or even reduced.
A commission sets the costs for state funding and what £N and £M are over time.
This has the advantage of being voluntary and promoting the sharing of risk. Some tax support for those with little wealth required but no need for huge tax increases or NI surcharge.
Under 1 you pay upfront. What’s to stop the government demanding more or reducing the service?
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
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
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.
Are you having a laugh? Corbyn's 2017 manifesto was the biggest magic money tree wish list in history, whereas May's was too tightly costed and detailed without any regards for whether any of it was popular. Hence she lost her majority and Boris followed the magic money tree route to beat Corbyn at his own game in 2019
Oh no. I didn’t realise you posted this before I supported you in the other post.
I still support your defence of eating into my pay packet and spending power in order to help people in desperate need out there. 🙂
But I would add here, the 20th Century was the Conservative century because there is no magic money tree was always the election winning response to Labours economy busting claim government could just spend spend spend without problem with bills. The Conservative way of winning was with fiscal conservatism and prudence in contrast to Labours wasteful spending. £240 to supply a light bulb etc thanks Tony and Gordon.
There were a lot of elements in 2019 win not just spending promises, get Brexit done, elect a PM who isn’t an IRA and terrorist sympathiser etc etc.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Mate, I travel. I travel widely in America. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. In LA, San Fran, New Orleans and onwards
Shocking
You do need to go to rural America - to the near shantytowns in Colorado, New Mexico or West Virginia.
The poverty there is even worse, because at least there are jobs in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. What's the solution to people living in falling down trailers, with no education and no nearby jobs?
This was an eye opening and somewhat depressing book
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
You are absolutely right HY, I totally support you. What is the government supposed to do with massive waiting lists cause of Covid on top of already underfunded social care, just ignore it? You will find it an easier sell on the doorstep, people on here only think of what’s good or bad for them, not what they can do for their community, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, the essence of social care, the people in pain or danger on astronomical waiting lists.
Provide the money for the NHS and keep taxes low and grow the economy out of the economic mess.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then tax receipts will go up without any tax rises.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then the government will spend less on eg universal credit etc automatically without any tax rises or cuts to welfare.
Bit more complicated than that, though.
If pay goes up in the private sector, the government does gain through lower welfare bills and higher tax receipts. But it's pretty likely that the public sector pay bill will also go up, which swallows some-to-most-to-all of the gains. After all, most of the jobs that are left in the public sector are things that need doing, are mostly about people rather than machines or computers, and have limited potential to squeeze out game-changing efficiency gains. You can't put many extra children in each classroom, because there's no space. A care worker can't talk to two elderly people at once, let alone wash them simultaneously. A soldier can only fire one gun at a time. That sort of thing.
Prosperity is a good thing- it ought to be encouraged. But it's not without costs.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.
You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth
This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.
Mate, I travel. I travel widely in America. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. In LA, San Fran, New Orleans and onwards
Shocking
You do need to go to rural America - to the near shantytowns in Colorado, New Mexico or West Virginia.
The poverty there is even worse, because at least there are jobs in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. What's the solution to people living in falling down trailers, with no education and no nearby jobs?
Mrs U worked with a program based an hour or so from Seattle in the sticks. Total poverty. Just that but too far to realistically work in the city, especially via any idea of near non-existant public transport, no jobs, little income, kids all feed and clothed via donation.
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
You are absolutely right HY, I totally support you. What is the government supposed to do with massive waiting lists cause of Covid on top of already underfunded social care, just ignore it? You will find it an easier sell on the doorstep, people on here only think of what’s good or bad for them, not what they can do for their community, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, the essence of social care, the people in pain or danger on astronomical waiting lists.
Provide the money for the NHS and keep taxes low and grow the economy out of the economic mess.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then tax receipts will go up without any tax rises.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then the government will spend less on eg universal credit etc automatically without any tax rises or cuts to welfare.
Bit more complicated than that, though.
If pay goes up in the private sector, the government does gain through lower welfare bills and higher tax receipts. But it's pretty likely that the public sector pay bill will also go up, which swallows some-to-most-to-all of the gains. After all, most of the jobs that are left in the public sector are things that need doing, are mostly about people rather than machines or computers, and have limited potential to squeeze out game-changing efficiency gains. You can't put many extra children in each classroom, because there's no space. A care worker can't talk to two elderly people at once, let alone wash them simultaneously. A soldier can only fire one gun at a time. That sort of thing.
Prosperity is a good thing- it ought to be encouraged. But it's not without costs.
Its not without costs but nor does it swallow all the gains. Indeed for centuries increased efficiency has led to increased gains precisely because the gains of prosperity allow us to offer ever more. Afterall if you've already got your children in a classroom you don't need an extra classroom just because you've got a more prosperous society. That classroom already exists. The kids are already in it.
OTOH if you've got a less prosperous society, if you've got hundreds of thousands of extra people all working minimum wage jobs supplemented by Universal Credit, housing benefits etc then their kids will need an extra classroom. Which is fine if you're prepared to pay for it.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
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
No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
Yes, it needed the pitch to be rolled and she didn't even get the roller out of the shed. I liked the policy.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I see Lindsay is clamping down on the wearing of casual dress in the Commons chamber. I don't disagree with that myself - though do note that Denis Healey was wearing trainers there in his last Parliament - ie the early 1990s.
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.
It is very sad indeed - though it takes my mind back to the last few months of my time at Primary School in the early Spring of 1965. A boy from my class had joined the school in October 1964 - Election Day as it happens! - from a Fleet Air Arm family. His father had been posted to RNAS Brawdy - HMS Goldcrest. He was 10 years old and very bright - and certainly destined to have no problem passing the 11plus to enter the local Grammar School. At the beginning of 1965 he was admitted to hospital for what appeared to be appendicitis - and in due course returned to school. Then , in February he had to return to hospital - and we never saw him again. He had developed some form of untreatable cancer and eventually passed away on ist April 1965. Just 10 years old - bless him - and what a waste! I often think of him.
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
You are absolutely right HY, I totally support you. What is the government supposed to do with massive waiting lists cause of Covid on top of already underfunded social care, just ignore it? You will find it an easier sell on the doorstep, people on here only think of what’s good or bad for them, not what they can do for their community, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, the essence of social care, the people in pain or danger on astronomical waiting lists.
Provide the money for the NHS and keep taxes low and grow the economy out of the economic mess.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then tax receipts will go up without any tax rises.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then the government will spend less on eg universal credit etc automatically without any tax rises or cuts to welfare.
Bit more complicated than that, though.
If pay goes up in the private sector, the government does gain through lower welfare bills and higher tax receipts. But it's pretty likely that the public sector pay bill will also go up, which swallows some-to-most-to-all of the gains. After all, most of the jobs that are left in the public sector are things that need doing, are mostly about people rather than machines or computers, and have limited potential to squeeze out game-changing efficiency gains. You can't put many extra children in each classroom, because there's no space. A care worker can't talk to two elderly people at once, let alone wash them simultaneously. A soldier can only fire one gun at a time. That sort of thing.
Prosperity is a good thing- it ought to be encouraged. But it's not without costs.
Its not without costs but nor does it swallow all the gains. Indeed for centuries increased efficiency has led to increased gains precisely because the gains of prosperity allow us to offer ever more. Afterall if you've already got your children in a classroom you don't need an extra classroom just because you've got a more prosperous society. That classroom already exists. The kids are already in it.
OTOH if you've got a less prosperous society, if you've got hundreds of thousands of extra people all working minimum wage jobs supplemented by Universal Credit, housing benefits etc then their kids will need an extra classroom. Which is fine if you're prepared to pay for it.
What about the argument care funding is a problem now because it’s been ignored for so long? And that Covid causing immediate problem with waiting lists, which justify special measures, not the growing money first on money tree approach you are suggesting, because money needs to be found now. And as fairly as possible.
Six polls in Canada since the French leaders debate. EKOS shows a 6.2% lead for the Tories. Plenty enough. The other five all show Tory leads ranging from 1 to 2.8% with an average of 2%. Not nearly enough. Trudeau will be back on those figures. All to play for.
ITV’s Peston admits that ‘every day I stay in work as a middle-class white man is a bonus’ - and says his career probably wouldn’t get off the ground today
He said: 'I am astonishingly fortunate to do what I do. As soon as people think I am not there on merit, I guess I'll have to go.' (off you pop then)
Nowt to do with you being middle class or white or a man....its because you are arrogant ill-informed prick, who is consistently wrong about most things.
Revolts are inevitable. What will be interesting is the reason given. If someone relies purely on breach of manifesto that is seriously underwhelming and weak, since everyone knows breaches can be justifiable, and they would be avoiding the question of why they don't think it is in this case. Going on record that it is a bad plan would be more notable.
Part of Johnson's genius over the last eighteen months has been a kind of triangulation. He's had opponents on both the hawkish and doveish side of Covid response, but it's not been easy (maybe not possible) for them to coalesce. When push came to shove, the doves had to back the government because there was an urgent crisis and the alternative (unpick all restricitions) was even worse.
There might be something like this going on now. Opposition from the one side (Old Conservatives and points left) along the lines of "taxes ought to rise to pay for this, but NI is the worst possible tax" and from the other, "taxes? TAXES?!" But the game has changed a bit. Social care funding isn't critically urgent, it's just an impending fiasco that needs sorting. So a coalition of "No Tax Rises" and "Fairer Tax Rises" might work, if the phrasing is right.
Another thing. Johnson has been PM for just over two years. We had six months of Brexit Crisis, then a brief hiatus (remember the "hiring freaks with weird views" thing?), then eighteen months of Covid crisis. A baptism of fire in some ways, but politics on easy mode in others. For most of the Johnson years, it's been obvious what the defining issue is, and money is no object. If we're returning to normal politics, that stops being so.
Does anyone think that Johnson, his ministers or his systems are well configured to deal with normal political life?
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
He might win the next election - indeed I fear so - but he won't be PM until 2054.
Which is precisely why he set that timeframe
But you can't just state "Boris has made it clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 33 years" like that.
It's imo close to meriting a ban from the site for a short period.
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
No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
Yes, it needed the pitch to be rolled and she didn't even get the roller out of the shed. I liked the policy.
“ 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”
How are you going to field the Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do response when it comes at you? You have prepared an answer already?
I see Lindsay is clamping down on the wearing of casual dress in the Commons chamber. I don't disagree with that myself - though do note that Denis Healey was wearing trainers there in his last Parliament - ie the early 1990s.
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.
It is very sad indeed - though it takes my mind back to the last few months of my time at Primary School in the early Spring of 1965. A boy from my class had joined the school in October 1964 - Election Day as it happens! - from a Fleet Air Arm family. His father had been posted to RNAS Brawdy - HMS Goldcrest. He was 10 years old and very bright - and certainly destined to have no problem passing the 11plus to enter the local Grammar School. At the beginning of 1965 he was admitted to hospital for what appeared to be appendicitis - and in due course returned to school. Then , in February he had to return to hospital - and we never saw him again. He had developed some form of untreatable cancer and eventually passed away on ist April 1965. Just 10 years old - bless him - and what a waste! I often think of him.
That's horrible.
I lost a friend at 10 too. I was the youngest [I'd skipped a grade] and smallest in the class other than him, but despite being a year older than me he didn't even come up to my hip. He needed surgery to correct a curvature in his spine caused by his Dwarfism and we'd all wished him well for his surgery. Then we were told he was still in hospital and we should pray for him. Then we kept praying for him. Then after a fortnight we were told his parents had been told he wouldn't wake up and they'd had to turn off his life support. 😢
I'd never known anyone who died until then - I don't believe I ever prayed again after that either.
Sunak trying to ensure all the new money is not swallowed by the NHS leaving nothing for social care says Times.
Good.
Raising the obvious question. If it isn't, then where will it swallow from?
To be honest, one of the problems of NHS funding has always been the stop-go aspect. After years of cheese paring "Cost Improvement Plans" we get splashed a bunch of cash, with instant results wanted. It just doesn't work like that. It's the management by financial bulimia.
Far better would be gradual, planned permanent expansion. Invest in building operating theatres and postgraduate training and there will be real extra capacity. Or just splurge the money on overtime, WLI payments and private outsourcing, and end up with no extra capacity and exhausted burnt out staff. My money is on the latter...
A New Labour mistake, that, imo. Sticking to Tory spending plans at first then turning the tap full on. Better a smooth profile for the higher investment.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
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
No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
Yes, it needed the pitch to be rolled and she didn't even get the roller out of the shed. I liked the policy.
“ 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”
How are you going to field the Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do response when it comes at you? You have prepared an answer already?
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.
Petrol duty is a pass through cost. (It doesn’t usually go down though!)
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
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
That was what I meant - you grew up knowing only Thatcher’s Tories
Health & education spending have massive positive externalities so it makes sense to fund from taxes. Social care less so - more of a moral issue.
The purpose of saving is to provide for periods when you need moneyZ the ability to pass a surplus in at your death is nice but not a right.
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
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
That’s a shame - I took the story semi seriously (although assumed it was exaggerated) because it was in rolling stone
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.
Petrol duty is a pass through cost. (It doesn’t usually go down though!)
Wages are sticky downwards.
Wages may be sticky downwards, but the market ultimately finds a way - whether it be through unemployment or smaller pay rises. Especially in an environment where pay rises are happening, then a tax rise on labour can suppress labour rises. Which also means more welfare payments, lower tax receipts and people are worse off.
Its absolutely delusional to suggest you can level direct taxes without affecting the market.
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
Far too complicated. Just a percentage tax on house value
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
This has been an interesting discussion. After that, do you agree that Trump is more a Mercantilist than a Capitalist?
Yes. The free trade is important part of it, isn’t it. He got uppity with companies who wouldn’t close their factories in China and reopen in USA. That was a change from how US government, under both parties approached business. It was arguably a change from what made America great - he was actively making America ungreat. He was, yes, arguably deviating from capitalism to something else.
Maybe free trade v protectionism is something that goes round in cycles, rather than being an absolute answer?
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
Given he came quite close to a 2nd term I'd say there ought to have been a touch more "OMB" in the media than we got. For me, he got away with far too much. He was pandered to.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
Because his show became every single episode, 45 mins, this week ORANGE MAN BAD...anything else....no...ORANGE MAN BAD...well tonight's focus is on the topic of x....5 secs later ORANGE MAN BAD has done something BAD about this....but this problem has existed in America for many years...yes but ORANGE MAN BAD is making it worse.
It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.
Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
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
No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
Yes, it needed the pitch to be rolled and she didn't even get the roller out of the shed. I liked the policy.
“ 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”
How are you going to field the Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do response when it comes at you? You have prepared an answer already?
I have my box of tools, yes. 🙂
I was actually aiming that at HY whose quote is from the thread.
“ Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do “ has been said from IDS to Eye or.
The table posted here yesterday, two beautiful symmetrical crosses the last two elections explains the governments thinking.
"Ministers should "keep their word" on the pensions triple-lock - even if OAPs get a bigger rise than workers."
The Labour Party is finished (Clue is in the name)
What about the argument, they are workers today but pensioners tomorrow, and maintaining not widening gap between earnings and pensions is exactly what working people want to hear?
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
Because his show became every single episode, 45 mins, this week ORANGE MAN BAD...anything else....no...ORANGE MAN BAD...well tonight's focus is on the topic of x....5 secs later ORANGE MAN BAD has done something BAD about this....but this problem has existed in America for many years...yes but ORANGE MAN BAD is making it worse.
It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.
Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..
I mean Donald Trump was regularly doing many bad things every week. What is the media supposed to do, not cover half the fuck-ups?
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
Because his show became every single episode, 45 mins, this week ORANGE MAN BAD...anything else....no...ORANGE MAN BAD...well tonight's focus is on the topic of x....5 secs later ORANGE MAN BAD has done something BAD about this....but this problem has existed in America for many years...yes but ORANGE MAN BAD is making it worse.
It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.
Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..
I mean Donald Trump was regularly doing many bad things every week. What is the media supposed to do, not cover half the fuck-ups?
The interesting thing about John Oliver's show is in the past his team used to pick up stories that really weren't part of the mainstream conversion e.g. the trailer park issue. Nobody is talking about how screwed people in trailer parks are getting. That was super interesting, expanding ones knowledge, as you really didn't know what was going to be on, actually where the problem first came from and why it is now a major issue.
And normally they pick stories that are quite involved, and require 20 mins to explain all the ins and out (and it goes way beyond the POTUS).
Since Trump has gone, they are starting to return to these kind of stories a lot more.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
David Ricardo is - iirc - much more readable than Adam Smith.
He seems shaped by many things, which is a positive. Jewish immigrant, whilst young disowned by family for running off with a Quaker (que joke about sowing oats) and becomes Unitarian. But why is he sitting as a Whig not a Tory?
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
Because his show became every single episode, 45 mins, this week ORANGE MAN BAD...anything else....no...ORANGE MAN BAD...well tonight's focus is on the topic of x....5 secs later ORANGE MAN BAD has done something BAD about this....but this problem has existed in America for many years...yes but ORANGE MAN BAD is making it worse.
It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.
Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..
I mean Donald Trump was regularly doing many bad things every week. What is the media supposed to do, not cover half the fuck-ups?
The interesting thing about John Oliver's show is in the past his team used to pick up stories that really weren't part of the mainstream conversion e.g. the trailer park issue. Nobody is talking about how screwed people in trailer parks are getting. That was super interesting, expanding ones knowledge, as you really didn't know what was going to be on, actually where the problem first came from and why it is now a major issue.
And normally they pick stories that are quite involved, and require 20 mins to explain all the ins and out (and it goes way beyond the POTUS).
Since Trump has gone, they are starting to return to these kind of stories.
There is a trend for trailer park users to be evicted and the facilities targeted at people wanting to use it as a base for day-trippers for hunting/camping/fishing etc or people inspired by the 'Vanlife' style youtube channels.
Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.
Because his show became every single episode, 45 mins, this week ORANGE MAN BAD...anything else....no...ORANGE MAN BAD...well tonight's focus is on the topic of x....5 secs later ORANGE MAN BAD has done something BAD about this....but this problem has existed in America for many years...yes but ORANGE MAN BAD is making it worse.
It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.
Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..
I mean Donald Trump was regularly doing many bad things every week. What is the media supposed to do, not cover half the fuck-ups?
The interesting thing about John Oliver's show is in the past his team used to pick up stories that really weren't part of the mainstream conversion e.g. the trailer park issue. Nobody is talking about how screwed people in trailer parks are getting. That was super interesting, expanding ones knowledge, as you really didn't know what was going to be on, actually where the problem first came from and why it is now a major issue.
And normally they pick stories that are quite involved, and require 20 mins to explain all the ins and out (and it goes way beyond the POTUS).
Since Trump has gone, they are starting to return to these kind of stories.
There is a trend for trailer park users to be evicted and the facilities targeted at people wanting to use it as a base for day-trippers for hunting/camping/fishing etc.
If I remember the episode correctly, the main issue were two fold.
One is that there is a duopoly forming, that are buying up all the mom and pop trailer parks and then they jack up prices for all the amenities. And where can you go, nowhere. It costs a fortune to try and move, and of course they own all the other ones in the area.
And secondly, residents of trailer parks can't get any finance, a mortgage, a loan against anything, etc, so they are stuck in the cycle. And I think its also very hard or nearly impossible to get insurance.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
David Ricardo is - iirc - much more readable than Adam Smith.
He seems shaped by many things, which is a positive. Jewish immigrant, whilst young disowned by family for running off with a Quaker (que joke about sowing oats) and becomes Unitarian. But why is he sitting as a Whig not a Tory?
Because he was a Whig.
Tories were the more Mercantilist party. Whigs became the more Capitalist one (which he helped develop).
This is why I have run-ins with HYUFD. He's like a 17th Century Tory sometimes, and he's right to call me a Liberal and in the 17/18th century with my views I'd be voting Whig not Tory (actually 17th century me wouldn't have been eligible to vote).
The Conservatives over time switched from Mercantilism and embraced Capitalism. They embraced more Liberal economics etc
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.
Why not? If I owned a house but incurred care costs, I don't see why whoever I left money to should benefit from my house but not from my costs. If you take over a company, you acquire both assets and liabilities. While inheriting money feels very different the same principle should apply.
My main issue with John Oliver show is they are great at finding stories of issues outside of the mainstream conversion, very light on proposing any workable sensible alternatives / solutions.
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
David Ricardo is - iirc - much more readable than Adam Smith.
He seems shaped by many things, which is a positive. Jewish immigrant, whilst young disowned by family for running off with a Quaker (que joke about sowing oats) and becomes Unitarian. But why is he sitting as a Whig not a Tory?
Because he was a Whig.
Tories were the more Mercantilist party. Whigs became the more Capitalist one (which he helped develop).
This is why I have run-ins with HYUFD. He's like a 17th Century Tory sometimes, and he's right to call me a Liberal and in the 17/18th century with my views I'd be voting Whig not Tory (actually 17th century me wouldn't have been eligible to vote).
The Conservatives over time switched from Mercantilism and embraced Capitalism. They embraced more Liberal economics etc
You’ve set me up to say HYs politics is stuck in the eighties - the 1780s?
I won’t say it. Rounding on HY like a pack of dogs is so last week.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
This has been an interesting discussion. After that, do you agree that Trump is more a Mercantilist than a Capitalist?
I’ve gone into the etymology
The noun mercantilism came from the Latin mercāns, or "buyer." It was a system that encouraged the idea of government trade regulation to gain wealth, a move away from agriculture system as an economic base.
mercantile spirit or character; devotion (or excess devotion) to trade and commerce," 1834, from French mercantilisme
Originally the standard English term was "mercantile system". The word "mercantilism" came into English from German in the early-19th century. The bulk of what is commonly called "mercantilist literature" appeared in the 1620s in Great Britain.
The theory that a nation must always have a positive balance of trade, in the manner that a merchant would operate a shop. Typically this model presupposes protectionism.
The theory that holds that the prosperity of a nation depends upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of trade is unchangeable.
“ What is mercantilism, exactly? As you may remember from some long-ago high school class, it’s an economic philosophy that was prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries.” So the original thinking was move away from the agriculture system as an economic base? But this required government trade regulation.
Correct me where wrong, but by Jove I think I got it.
Is moving from agriculture base particularly English? Surely there were states, around the med, already built on trade not agriculture. Also all this pre dated ‘nation state’?
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.
Six polls in Canada since the French leaders debate. EKOS shows a 6.2% lead for the Tories. Plenty enough. The other five all show Tory leads ranging from 1 to 2.8% with an average of 2%. Not nearly enough. Trudeau will be back on those figures. All to play for.
It's too close to call on seats, and the convention in Canada is whichever party gets most seats takes office no matter how far they are from a majority.
Mainline US media is now reporting on some charter aircraft stuck at Mazar i Sharif airport. They have been stuck there for days. Also there are US citizens and eligible Afghans who are meant to be getting on those flights stuck at the airport.
So why cant they just fly? Stories have it the Taliban have refused, which seems fairly much accepted based on sources in the US government.
Why have they refused? Some stories say that the US State Department hasnt done its job in doing its documentation to get the fights cleared by the Taliban. Others say the US State Department has no role or much specific knowledge of what are private charter flights or the people awaiting to fly whilst acknowledging that US citizens and eligible Afghans are at least meant to be on those flights . Others say its a pay to fly situation with the Taliban demanding some concessions from the US government which makes it an effective hostage situation.
If this drags out a few days more without resolution, its unlikely to remain a relatively low profile story.
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.
There are 430,000 civil servants in England & Wales, give or take. Let's go with incredibly broad numbers, and say they are all on UK median income of £30,000 each. That's £12.9bn, give or take.
Which is a lot of money. But it's barely more than 1% of the £1,053bn spent by the government each year.
Edit to add: the Institute for Government has a more recent number of 468,000 - which gets you to about £14bn.
"Nicholas Lezard The boys who never grow up: Sad Little Men, by Richard Beard, reviewed A furious denunciation of the private boarding school system which produces damaged men prone to dissembling, hypocrisy, snobbery – and a blind belief in their right to run the country" (£)
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
Mainline US media is now reporting on some charter aircraft stuck at Mazar i Sharif airport. They have been stuck there for days. Also there are US citizens and eligible Afghans who are meant to be getting on those flights stuck at the airport.
So why cant they just fly? Stories have it the Taliban have refused, which seems fairly much accepted based on sources in the US government.
Why have they refused? Some stories say that the US State Department hasnt done its job in doing its documentation to get the fights cleared by the Taliban. Others say the US State Department has no role or much specific knowledge of what are private charter flights or the people awaiting to fly whilst acknowledging that US citizens and eligible Afghans are at least meant to be on those flights . Others say its a pay to fly situation with the Taliban demanding some concessions from the US government which makes it an effective hostage situation.
If this drags out a few days more without resolution, its unlikely to remain a relatively low profile story.
Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.
But there's clearly a deeper problem.
American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.
"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.
Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy
Leave it, Donald, they don't appreciate you and they're not worth it!
The wisest words I think I’ve ever seen you post on here @kinablu.
Right, off for another round of golf before lunch with Melania and that Russian hooker from the Steele dossier who p1ssed all over me
I don't think anyone has ever alleged Donald was peed on. I think the allegation was that he saw hookers pee on each other.
Re Trump concerns this doesn't make my top 20.
Then it should because it is said to form part of the hold Russia had over Trump;
I mean, really?
If I'd paid some hot Russian hookers to pee all over me, I think it's want everyone to know.
Sadly, my life just isn't that exciting.
As Vladimir Putin boasted, Russian sex workers are the best in the world. But Trump (allegedly) paid them to pee on the bed previously used by Obama, not to pee on himself (which btw fits with his obsessive cleanliness). These days, thanks to the interweb, you can do the same: commission some lewd or obscene act that does not require your participation.
"Nicholas Lezard The boys who never grow up: Sad Little Men, by Richard Beard, reviewed A furious denunciation of the private boarding school system which produces damaged men prone to dissembling, hypocrisy, snobbery – and a blind belief in their right to run the country" (£)
ITV’s Peston admits that ‘every day I stay in work as a middle-class white man is a bonus’ - and says his career probably wouldn’t get off the ground today
He said: 'I am astonishingly fortunate to do what I do. As soon as people think I am not there on merit, I guess I'll have to go.' (off you pop then)
Nowt to do with you being middle class or white or a man....its because you are arrogant ill-informed prick, who is consistently wrong about most things.
Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?
Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.
Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?
Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.
Not seen the details but that sounds like the position in Scotland where social care is "free" but you still pay the accommodation part of your costs on a means tested basis.
On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.
Johnson is said to be wary of making enemies and had been inclined to delay change until after Cop26 in Glasgow. “He does not like an ambitious cabinet, he always says he likes ‘old tired lions – so I can be king lion’,” the senior Tory said.…
Johnson is said to be wary of making enemies and had been inclined to delay change until after Cop26 in Glasgow. “He does not like an ambitious cabinet, he always says he likes ‘old tired lions – so I can be king lion’,” the senior Tory said.…
I'd worry if Cabinet members were NOT ambitious; not necessarily to be PM, but to somehow leave their mark on history as the person who did whatever.
And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?
I'd worry if Cabinet members were NOT ambitious; not necessarily to be PM, but to somehow leave their mark on history as the person who did whatever.
And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?
Gavin Williamson has already succeeded admirably in that regard. Perhaps he could now move on content to be the first defence Secretary fired for leaking classified information and the first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act?
I'd worry if Cabinet members were NOT ambitious; not necessarily to be PM, but to somehow leave their mark on history as the person who did whatever.
And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?
Gavin Williamson has already succeeded admirably in that regard. Perhaps he could now move on content to be the first defence Secretary fired for leaking classified information and the first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act?
I like that thought..... first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
I'd worry if Cabinet members were NOT ambitious; not necessarily to be PM, but to somehow leave their mark on history as the person who did whatever.
And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?
Gavin Williamson has already succeeded admirably in that regard. Perhaps he could now move on content to be the first defence Secretary fired for leaking classified information and the first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act?
I like that thought..... first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Where did that come from?
The unions, back in January, when he was still trying to pretend there was no transmission in schools on the basis of falsified figures and threatening legal action against schools that had to close because of staffing shortages.
It was abandoned when schools shut. Personally I think that was an error. They should still have gone for it and forced the DfE to explain themselves in court. But with the long backlog in cases perhaps they felt it wasn’t worth the wait.
I'd worry if Cabinet members were NOT ambitious; not necessarily to be PM, but to somehow leave their mark on history as the person who did whatever.
And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?
Gavin Williamson has already succeeded admirably in that regard. Perhaps he could now move on content to be the first defence Secretary fired for leaking classified information and the first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act?
I like that thought..... first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Where did that come from?
The unions, back in January, when he was still trying to pretend there was no transmission in schools on the basis of falsified figures and threatening legal action against schools that had to close because of staffing shortages.
It was abandoned when schools shut. Personally I think that was an error. They should still have gone for it and forced the DfE to explain themselves in court. But with the long backlog in cases perhaps they felt it wasn’t worth the wait.
Not a current case then. Pity. Could well have been 'interesting'.
Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?
Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.
Not seen the details but that sounds like the position in Scotland where social care is "free" but you still pay the accommodation part of your costs on a means tested basis.
On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.
I'm sure you're right and it's not being considered.
Would removing NI exemption for pensioners only affect employment income anyway?
I'd do that but also, short of a root and branch tax overhaul, try and find a revenue neutral (for workers) decrease in NI and increase in IT that would shift more of the tax take from workers to the retired.
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.
Petrol duty is a pass through cost. (It doesn’t usually go down though!)
Wages are sticky downwards.
Wages may be sticky downwards, but the market ultimately finds a way - whether it be through unemployment or smaller pay rises. Especially in an environment where pay rises are happening, then a tax rise on labour can suppress labour rises. Which also means more welfare payments, lower tax receipts and people are worse off.
Its absolutely delusional to suggest you can level direct taxes without affecting the market.
Of course it influences the market.
But it is an externality.
It is not tax paid or accounted for by the employee.
Let’s say that a determination is made that all Cambridge degrees have zero value. Everyone with a Cambridge degree has suffered a negative event that will impact their employability and earning potential over time. That’s not a charge on them - it’s a change in the external market environment
Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?
Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.
Not seen the details but that sounds like the position in Scotland where social care is "free" but you still pay the accommodation part of your costs on a means tested basis.
On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.
I'm sure you're right and it's not being considered.
Would removing NI exemption for pensioners only affect employment income anyway?
I'd do that but also, short of a root and branch tax overhaul, try and find a revenue neutral (for workers) decrease in NI and increase in IT that would shift more of the tax take from workers to the retired.
Merge them, so that NI becomes IT and is applied to all income.
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
This has been an interesting discussion. After that, do you agree that Trump is more a Mercantilist than a Capitalist?
Yes. The free trade is important part of it, isn’t it. He got uppity with companies who wouldn’t close their factories in China and reopen in USA. That was a change from how US government, under both parties approached business. It was arguably a change from what made America great - he was actively making America ungreat. He was, yes, arguably deviating from capitalism to something else.
Maybe free trade v protectionism is something that goes round in cycles, rather than being an absolute answer?
The top dog benefits from being mercantilist. It’s why the Romans and the Dutch liked it, and the British did at first. The whole free trade vs Imperial Preference debate was about this at its root. Fortunately we created a legacy where the UK (because we need to be) and America (because they believe in it) are fundamentally free traders
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.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
Thanks.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?
Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.
Not seen the details but that sounds like the position in Scotland where social care is "free" but you still pay the accommodation part of your costs on a means tested basis.
On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.
I'm sure you're right and it's not being considered.
Would removing NI exemption for pensioners only affect employment income anyway?
I'd do that but also, short of a root and branch tax overhaul, try and find a revenue neutral (for workers) decrease in NI and increase in IT that would shift more of the tax take from workers to the retired.
Like other retired pb 'members', I'm financially OK..... not rich but OK ...... and I really don't see why my working grandchildren should have their taxes increased to 'help' me.
However, I'm also very aware that the retired part of the population includes many who are very much not financially OK, and need help. Especially when it comes to 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
No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
Yes, it needed the pitch to be rolled and she didn't even get the roller out of the shed. I liked the policy.
“ 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”
How are you going to field the Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do response when it comes at you? You have prepared an answer already?
I have my box of tools, yes. 🙂
I was actually aiming that at HY whose quote is from the thread.
“ Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do “ has been said from IDS to Eye or.
The table posted here yesterday, two beautiful symmetrical crosses the last two elections explains the governments thinking.
But what joins it’s all up on one page?
It’s kind of the logic next step
Once you have converted the UK to a rentier economy you need to do the same to the tax system….
On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector. We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
Catastrophe insurance provided by the government makes sense (and funded by tax)
A safety net to underpin
That puts bounds around risk meaning that insurance companies can prove accordingly for the middle slice
Comments
Heroes these guys in their own special ways.
Just because a tax may take until the next pay review to take effect, doesn't mean it doesn't take effect. Taxes have consequences.
If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.
'Corbyn was a disaster on the doorstep... everyone knew he couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag'.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1205284227895496704
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then tax receipts will go up without any tax rises.
If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then the government will spend less on eg universal credit etc automatically without any tax rises or cuts to welfare.
Far better would be gradual, planned permanent expansion. Invest in building operating theatres and postgraduate training and there will be real extra capacity. Or just splurge the money on overtime, WLI payments and private outsourcing, and end up with no extra capacity and exhausted burnt out staff. My money is on the latter...
May went from heading for a near landslide to losing her majority because of that policy, it was that unpopular
They got away with it a lot when they had huge manufacturing plants, mines, etc.
The best education in the US includes going to a world leading university. But it falls off really quickly. High school standards are far below Western Europe, and whole generations that didn't even pass that (or barely). In the 60-80s, that wasn't as much of a handicap if you were willing to work, there were factory jobs that paid well and at least for white folks could result in "an american dream".
Now, that just doesn't fly. If you don't have at least a college degree, you are going to be stuck in cycle of minimum wage jobs.
That then just magnifies the historical racial and wealth inequality. And more than ever is a huge barrier to any social mobility...and also why you can convince large numbers nonsense that Trump was pushing, now all the anti-vaxxer stuff, and all manner of other nonsense that adds to the chaos.
Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.
And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.
I still support your defence of eating into my pay packet and spending power in order to help people in desperate need out there. 🙂
But I would add here, the 20th Century was the Conservative century because there is no magic money tree was always the election winning response to Labours economy busting claim government could just spend spend spend without problem with bills.
The Conservative way of winning was with fiscal conservatism and prudence in contrast to Labours wasteful spending. £240 to supply a light bulb etc thanks Tony and Gordon.
There were a lot of elements in 2019 win not just spending promises, get Brexit done, elect a PM who isn’t an IRA and terrorist sympathiser etc etc.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Factory-Man-Furniture-Offshoring-American/dp/031623141X
If pay goes up in the private sector, the government does gain through lower welfare bills and higher tax receipts. But it's pretty likely that the public sector pay bill will also go up, which swallows some-to-most-to-all of the gains. After all, most of the jobs that are left in the public sector are things that need doing, are mostly about people rather than machines or computers, and have limited potential to squeeze out game-changing efficiency gains. You can't put many extra children in each classroom, because there's no space. A care worker can't talk to two elderly people at once, let alone wash them simultaneously. A soldier can only fire one gun at a time. That sort of thing.
Prosperity is a good thing- it ought to be encouraged. But it's not without costs.
OTOH if you've got a less prosperous society, if you've got hundreds of thousands of extra people all working minimum wage jobs supplemented by Universal Credit, housing benefits etc then their kids will need an extra classroom. Which is fine if you're prepared to pay for it.
Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?
Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?
And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?
Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?
Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.
Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.
Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.
I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.
John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.
EKOS shows a 6.2% lead for the Tories. Plenty enough.
The other five all show Tory leads ranging from 1 to 2.8% with an average of 2%. Not nearly enough. Trudeau will be back on those figures.
All to play for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Canadian_federal_election
He said: 'I am astonishingly fortunate to do what I do. As soon as people think I am not there on merit, I guess I'll have to go.' (off you pop then)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9960383/Every-day-stay-work-middle-class-white-man-bonus-Robert-Peston-says.html
Nowt to do with you being middle class or white or a man....its because you are arrogant ill-informed prick, who is consistently wrong about most things.
There might be something like this going on now. Opposition from the one side (Old Conservatives and points left) along the lines of "taxes ought to rise to pay for this, but NI is the worst possible tax" and from the other, "taxes? TAXES?!" But the game has changed a bit. Social care funding isn't critically urgent, it's just an impending fiasco that needs sorting. So a coalition of "No Tax Rises" and "Fairer Tax Rises" might work, if the phrasing is right.
Another thing. Johnson has been PM for just over two years. We had six months of Brexit Crisis, then a brief hiatus (remember the "hiring freaks with weird views" thing?), then eighteen months of Covid crisis. A baptism of fire in some ways, but politics on easy mode in others. For most of the Johnson years, it's been obvious what the defining issue is, and money is no object. If we're returning to normal politics, that stops being so.
Does anyone think that Johnson, his ministers or his systems are well configured to deal with normal political life?
It's imo close to meriting a ban from the site for a short period.
How are you going to field the Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do response when it comes at you? You have prepared an answer already?
I lost a friend at 10 too. I was the youngest [I'd skipped a grade] and smallest in the class other than him, but despite being a year older than me he didn't even come up to my hip. He needed surgery to correct a curvature in his spine caused by his Dwarfism and we'd all wished him well for his surgery. Then we were told he was still in hospital and we should pray for him. Then we kept praying for him. Then after a fortnight we were told his parents had been told he wouldn't wake up and they'd had to turn off his life support. 😢
I'd never known anyone who died until then - I don't believe I ever prayed again after that either.
At this rate, I might be able to buy one of these dumb profile pics for real.
"Ministers should "keep their word" on the pensions triple-lock - even if OAPs get a bigger rise than workers."
The Labour Party is finished (Clue is in the name)
Fascinating story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo
Wages are sticky downwards.
Health & education spending have massive positive externalities so it makes sense to fund from taxes. Social care less so - more of a moral issue.
The purpose of saving is to provide for periods when you need moneyZ the ability to pass a surplus in at your death is nice but not a right.
Its absolutely delusional to suggest you can level direct taxes without affecting the market.
Maybe free trade v protectionism is something that goes round in cycles, rather than being an absolute answer?
It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.
Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-trade-policy-is-stuck-in-the-80s--the-1680s/2018/05/31/f8e2f7c2-6510-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html
“ Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do “ has been said from IDS to Eye or.
The table posted here yesterday, two beautiful symmetrical crosses the last two elections explains the governments thinking.
But what joins it’s all up on one page?
And normally they pick stories that are quite involved, and require 20 mins to explain all the ins and out (and it goes way beyond the POTUS).
Since Trump has gone, they are starting to return to these kind of stories a lot more.
One is that there is a duopoly forming, that are buying up all the mom and pop trailer parks and then they jack up prices for all the amenities. And where can you go, nowhere. It costs a fortune to try and move, and of course they own all the other ones in the area.
And secondly, residents of trailer parks can't get any finance, a mortgage, a loan against anything, etc, so they are stuck in the cycle. And I think its also very hard or nearly impossible to get insurance.
Tories were the more Mercantilist party. Whigs became the more Capitalist one (which he helped develop).
This is why I have run-ins with HYUFD. He's like a 17th Century Tory sometimes, and he's right to call me a Liberal and in the 17/18th century with my views I'd be voting Whig not Tory (actually 17th century me wouldn't have been eligible to vote).
The Conservatives over time switched from Mercantilism and embraced Capitalism. They embraced more Liberal economics etc
To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.
The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.
More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector.
We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.
I won’t say it. Rounding on HY like a pack of dogs is so last week.
The noun mercantilism came from the Latin mercāns, or "buyer." It was a system that encouraged the idea of government trade regulation to gain wealth, a move away from agriculture system as an economic base.
mercantile spirit or character; devotion (or excess devotion) to trade and commerce," 1834, from French mercantilisme
Originally the standard English term was "mercantile system". The word "mercantilism" came into English from German in the early-19th century. The bulk of what is commonly called "mercantilist literature" appeared in the 1620s in Great Britain.
The theory that a nation must always have a positive balance of trade, in the manner that a merchant would operate a shop. Typically this model presupposes protectionism.
The theory that holds that the prosperity of a nation depends upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of trade is unchangeable.
“ What is mercantilism, exactly? As you may remember from some long-ago high school class, it’s an economic philosophy that was prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries.” So the original thinking was move away from the agriculture system as an economic base? But this required government trade regulation.
Correct me where wrong, but by Jove I think I got it.
Is moving from agriculture base particularly English? Surely there were states, around the med, already built on trade not agriculture. Also all this pre dated ‘nation state’?
Mainline US media is now reporting on some charter aircraft stuck at Mazar i Sharif airport. They have been stuck there for days. Also there are US citizens and eligible Afghans who are meant to be getting on those flights stuck at the airport.
So why cant they just fly? Stories have it the Taliban have refused, which seems fairly much accepted based on sources in the US government.
Why have they refused? Some stories say that the US State Department hasnt done its job in doing its documentation to get the fights cleared by the Taliban. Others say the US State Department has no role or much specific knowledge of what are private charter flights or the people awaiting to fly whilst acknowledging that US citizens and eligible Afghans are at least meant to be on those flights . Others say its a pay to fly situation with the Taliban demanding some concessions from the US government which makes it an effective hostage situation.
If this drags out a few days more without resolution, its unlikely to remain a relatively low profile story.
Which is a lot of money. But it's barely more than 1% of the £1,053bn spent by the government each year.
Edit to add: the Institute for Government has a more recent number of 468,000 - which gets you to about £14bn.
"Nicholas Lezard
The boys who never grow up: Sad Little Men, by Richard Beard, reviewed
A furious denunciation of the private boarding school system which produces damaged men prone to dissembling, hypocrisy, snobbery – and a blind belief in their right to run the country" (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-boys-who-never-grow-up-sad-little-men-by-richard-beard-reviewed
If I'd paid some hot Russian hookers to pee all over me, I think it's want everyone to know.
Sadly, my life just isn't that exciting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/some-1000-people-awaiting-taliban-flight-clearance-mazar-i-sharif-new-york-times-2021-09-05/?taid=613587bb05de4d0001e77838&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.
On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.
Johnson is said to be wary of making enemies and had been inclined to delay change until after Cop26 in Glasgow. “He does not like an ambitious cabinet, he always says he likes ‘old tired lions – so I can be king lion’,” the senior Tory said.…
They are also all incompetent
And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?
Where did that come from?
It was abandoned when schools shut. Personally I think that was an error. They should still have gone for it and forced the DfE to explain themselves in court. But with the long backlog in cases perhaps they felt it wasn’t worth the wait.
Would removing NI exemption for pensioners only affect employment income anyway?
I'd do that but also, short of a root and branch tax overhaul, try and find a revenue neutral (for workers) decrease in NI and increase in IT that would shift more of the tax take from workers to the retired.
But it is an externality.
It is not tax paid or accounted for by the employee.
Let’s say that a determination is made that all Cambridge degrees have zero value. Everyone with a Cambridge degree has suffered a negative event that will impact their employability and earning potential over time. That’s not a charge on them - it’s a change in the external market environment
However, I'm also very aware that the retired part of the population includes many who are very much not financially OK, and need help. Especially when it comes to social care.
Once you have converted the UK to a rentier economy you need to do the same to the tax system….
A safety net to underpin
That puts bounds around risk meaning that insurance companies can prove accordingly for the middle slice