The Government has drawn up plans for an October “firebreak” Covid lockdown should hospitalisations continue at their current level and threaten to overload the NHS, a senior Government scientist has told i.
The member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said the UK is about to enter “an extended peak” of infections and hospitalisations, which are in danger of pushing the NHS beyond breaking point and could force the Government to re-introduce restrictions over the school half term period at the end of next month.
A full lockdown is unlikely and would be a last resort, but there are a range of measures the government could introduce.
“This is essentially the precautionary break that Sage suggested last year,” said the Sage source. “It would be sensible to have contingency plans, and if a lockdown is required, to time it so that it has minimal economic and societal impact.
“We are going to be at a peak, albeit an extended peak, quite soon, so it’s not really the same situation as last year, when failure to reduce prevalence would have resulted in collapse of NHS and people dying in car parks,” he said.
“Hospitals might be overflowing before deaths reach the same level. Acting early will prevent this level.”
It is understood that the Government’s contingency plan for a “firebreak” lockdown could lead to an extension of the half-term, from one week for most schools to two weeks from late October into early November.
This romanianCanadian british lass can play a bit...won first set.
On her at 100s for the event. Big big star about to erupt, I think. Spoty possible also.
Good luck. I've had a small punt for this as well but I really can't see her troubling the SPotY judges until she wins Wimbledon. This may be a grand slam event but I doubt most people are watching. Now she has reached the quarter-finals, this may start to change but not enough.
One thing that might help Emma Radacanu in SPotY is if she picks up some mainstream adverts on the back of this excellent US Open run. (She is now around 7/1 fifth- or sixth-best in the betting for the US Open though, even after reaching the quarter-finals tonight.)
Interesting that The Sun headline calls it a "tax hike", and only mentions NI later on. I think the government may struggle to sell this as a rise in NI contributions, which it would like to do, if the tabloids just call it a rise in tax. An increase in NI contributions sounds more benign than a tax increase.
That's the charitable interpretation of why increasing NI polls better than increasing income tax.
The uncharitable interpretation is that some people (teacher stare) have clocked that they don't pay NI.
The putative NI rise is also being sold as hypothecated to the NHS (and social care in brackets) which probably helps with the polling.
I'm not sure this will go ahead. The Sun quotes an unnamed "top minister" rather than a Number 10 or Treasury source.
Beth Rigby just saying that the PM is setting out a plan tomorrow followed by a new conference with the Chancellor.
Looks past the point of no return now.
The bastards. Screw Boris. Screw Rishi. Screw the Tories.
I've been saying they will u-turn all day, but looking at tonight's front pages it is hard to see how they can now.
NI it is.
Would it be rude to point out that this is a tip of the old hat from Johnson to that master of finance and politics, Gordon Brown?
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
Interesting that The Sun headline calls it a "tax hike", and only mentions NI later on. I think the government may struggle to sell this as a rise in NI contributions, which it would like to do, if the tabloids just call it a rise in tax. An increase in NI contributions sounds more benign than a tax increase.
That's the charitable interpretation of why increasing NI polls better than increasing income tax.
The uncharitable interpretation is that some people (teacher stare) have clocked that they don't pay NI.
The putative NI rise is also being sold as hypothecated to the NHS (and social care in brackets) which probably helps with the polling.
I'm not sure this will go ahead. The Sun quotes an unnamed "top minister" rather than a Number 10 or Treasury source.
Beth Rigby just saying that the PM is setting out a plan tomorrow followed by a new conference with the Chancellor.
Looks past the point of no return now.
The bastards. Screw Boris. Screw Rishi. Screw the Tories.
I shall pass on some old advice from a northern mate: “just duck and dive and wheel and deal, and stay one step ahead of those mother fuckers in charge who will always do everything possible to make your life more difficult than it needs to be”.
It’s a revelatory feeling not voting, or caring who wins.
Interesting that The Sun headline calls it a "tax hike", and only mentions NI later on. I think the government may struggle to sell this as a rise in NI contributions, which it would like to do, if the tabloids just call it a rise in tax. An increase in NI contributions sounds more benign than a tax increase.
That's the charitable interpretation of why increasing NI polls better than increasing income tax.
The uncharitable interpretation is that some people (teacher stare) have clocked that they don't pay NI.
The putative NI rise is also being sold as hypothecated to the NHS (and social care in brackets) which probably helps with the polling.
I'm not sure this will go ahead. The Sun quotes an unnamed "top minister" rather than a Number 10 or Treasury source.
Beth Rigby just saying that the PM is setting out a plan tomorrow followed by a new conference with the Chancellor.
Looks past the point of no return now.
The bastards. Screw Boris. Screw Rishi. Screw the Tories.
I've been saying they will u-turn all day, but looking at tonight's front pages it is hard to see how they can now.
NI it is.
Would it be rude to point out that this is a tip of the old hat from Johnson to that master of finance and politics, Gordon Brown?
Tories stealing the economics of this countries worst Chancellor in modern times?
Screw the lot of them. I am so angry.
I never thought Sunak would morph in Brown. I win £5000 if he becomes our next PM so selfishly I'd love to see that, but politically were it not for that I'd want him to lose now.
Interesting that The Sun headline calls it a "tax hike", and only mentions NI later on. I think the government may struggle to sell this as a rise in NI contributions, which it would like to do, if the tabloids just call it a rise in tax. An increase in NI contributions sounds more benign than a tax increase.
That's the charitable interpretation of why increasing NI polls better than increasing income tax.
The uncharitable interpretation is that some people (teacher stare) have clocked that they don't pay NI.
The putative NI rise is also being sold as hypothecated to the NHS (and social care in brackets) which probably helps with the polling.
I'm not sure this will go ahead. The Sun quotes an unnamed "top minister" rather than a Number 10 or Treasury source.
It is being announced in the commons tomorrow so I just do not see a u turn at this late stage
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
Norway made sure the resources benefitted its population and largely developed them using state-owned companies... the UK left it up to private companies, and didn't negotiate a good deal. This analysis reckons UK missed out on hundreds of billions of revenue.
BP was state owned at the time. So the British government gained on the privatisation of BP later in the decade.
Now, it may be that the terms offered to companies for exploiting the North Sea were more favourable for the Norwegian government, but it is also worth remembering that when initial licenses were being auctioned, no-one was really sure it was going to work. The UK Continental Shelf Act was in 1963/64 and then there were a succession of dry holes. I forget the actual number, but I think of the first 48 or 49 wells drilled in the North Sea, none found oil. (Although a few found gas, which at the time was massively less valuable.)
Only with Ecofisk (which was the last well Phillips petroleum was planning on drilling, so unhappy were they with the North Sea), that things were transformed.
The Norwegians were lucky. They sold licenses later. And therefore they got the benefit of people knowing that oil was there.
As the link notes - a few extra billion from privatizations doesn't change the overall arithmetic. It wasn't luck - > better judgment & not being ideologically driven to privatise, instead being open for the public sector to take on risk. Ultimately a very costly mistake not to keep equity in case of a large upside.
It would also have been an equally costly mistake to have tried to carry the costs and risks for themselves though. A quick trawl through the history of the North sea and how many companies went bust or were only saved from going bust by being bought out by other companies shows how much risk would have been involved. Only 1 in 7 wells drilled in the North Sea ever found hydrocarbons and only 1 in 11 ever led to development.
The history of BNOC/Britoil is instructive in this case but they were only one amongst very many.
Sharing the risks would have been smart (upside and downside). It doesn't matter that many companies went bust and most wells didn't lead to development... overall it was incredibly profitable and sadly the UK missed out on much of what it could have had.
When you say "the UK missed out", do you mean:
(a) that more oil would have been extracted at lower cost (b) that more tax revenue could have been collected or (c) that British firms could have owned more of the licenses
Ultimately, a certain amount of oil was collected and sold. It generated jobs, tax revenue and a thriving oil industry in the UK. It *may* have been the case that more tax revenue was collectable - but that might also have led to less investment.
It's easy to make perfect decisions with perfect knowledge. People making investment decisions in the 70s and 80s did not have that.
And it is one of the most inhospitable places in the world (or was a t the time) to drill for oil.
I would like to put up a photo of the last time I was offshore in 2013 which would illustrate this well but I lack the technical ability...
Thanks to Robert for showing me how to do this. This was taken from the Solan platform West of Shetlands and shows the rig I was sat on at the time during a small blow. This is the Semi-sub Ocean Valiant, one of the largest drilling units out there.
The stresses on those legs must be fantastic; especially from a fatigue viewpoint.
Do remember that the legs aren't connected to the sea floor - it'll be a semisubmersible. Crazy technology. Really impressive.
Looks like my support for the Tory Party comes to an end tomorrow, if Beth Rigby is right. 😦
iain watson @iainjwatson It seems @BorisJohnson got a good reception at the reception on the terrace of the house of commons for backbench MPs - perhaps one reason for that is that he doesn't seem to have mentioned hiking national insurance
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
I should imagine that one of the first questions in said press conference will be something along the lines of "How is a 1% NI hike possibly meant to bail out the NHS and transform the funding of social care at the same time?"
In reality, the money will be eaten by the NHS in about a week, after which it will resume its ceaseless demands for more, and bugger all will actually get into the care system.
This only constitutes a big moment in politics if it opens the floodgates to a huge Old Labour-style programme of tax-and-spend. By itself it's a token gesture.
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
You may see those as well yet
No, “we” may see those yet. It’s the whole crux of this dispute. Are we all “in it together?” Or are we gonna just hammer workers to protect the fortunes of non-workers.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
Badoit and San Pellegrino have a nice volcanic taste.
All British mineral water tastes like nothing and is a waste of money.
Nonsense
Highland springs tastes different to buxton which tastes different to malvern
The best is that posh one, Hildon, tho I do confess that might be because it is served in expensive places and in expensive bottles. We are all susceptible to branding
I bet someone could switch the labels on them and you wouldn't tell the difference.
My girlfriend did it on me. Buxton versus highland. I got it right
And anyone who can't tell the difference between Dasani and Fiji Water has presumably been smoking 40-a-day for quite a long time.
That's easy. We can't buy Dasani in Britain. You must be one of those Russian trolls we've been warned against. Here is Tom Scott's entertaining explanation of why it all went wrong for Dasani (which I have bookmarked!). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD79NZroV88
I apologise, I live in the US, and frankly Dasani is better than LA tap water.
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
You may see those as well yet
No, “we” may see those yet. It’s the whole crux of this dispute. Are we all “in it together?” Or are we gonna just hammer workers to protect the fortunes of non-workers.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
It appears the triple lock goes with a 2.5% increase rather than 8.5% so big drop in the expected rise for pensioners
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
They've already said they'll oppose the NI hike as a tax on jobs, to be fair. But there's simply only so far that a party that's in favour of higher taxes can go in moaning about higher taxes, without saying that lower taxes are preferable and undermining itself.
Interesting that The Sun headline calls it a "tax hike", and only mentions NI later on. I think the government may struggle to sell this as a rise in NI contributions, which it would like to do, if the tabloids just call it a rise in tax. An increase in NI contributions sounds more benign than a tax increase.
That's the charitable interpretation of why increasing NI polls better than increasing income tax.
The uncharitable interpretation is that some people (teacher stare) have clocked that they don't pay NI.
The putative NI rise is also being sold as hypothecated to the NHS (and social care in brackets) which probably helps with the polling.
I'm not sure this will go ahead. The Sun quotes an unnamed "top minister" rather than a Number 10 or Treasury source.
Beth Rigby just saying that the PM is setting out a plan tomorrow followed by a new conference with the Chancellor.
Looks past the point of no return now.
The bastards. Screw Boris. Screw Rishi. Screw the Tories.
I've been saying they will u-turn all day, but looking at tonight's front pages it is hard to see how they can now.
NI it is.
Would it be rude to point out that this is a tip of the old hat from Johnson to that master of finance and politics, Gordon Brown?
Tories stealing the economics of this countries worst Chancellor in modern times?
Screw the lot of them. I am so angry.
I never thought Sunak would morph in Brown. I win £5000 if he becomes our next PM so selfishly I'd love to see that, but politically were it not for that I'd want him to lose now.
Gordon Brown did raise NI but then so did the preceding Conservative government and the following Conservative-led government.
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
You may see those as well yet
No, “we” may see those yet. It’s the whole crux of this dispute. Are we all “in it together?” Or are we gonna just hammer workers to protect the fortunes of non-workers.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
It appears the triple lock goes with a 2.5% increase rather than 8.5% so big drop in the expected rise for pensioners
No not a big drop, a 2.5% increase.
There hasn't been an 8.5% increase in wages, its an entirely artificial "rise" being missed and a smaller but still considerable increase instead.
This is like Labour saying Cameron was "cutting" then NHS when spending was going up.
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
You may see those as well yet
No, “we” may see those yet. It’s the whole crux of this dispute. Are we all “in it together?” Or are we gonna just hammer workers to protect the fortunes of non-workers.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
It appears the triple lock goes with a 2.5% increase rather than 8.5% so big drop in the expected rise for pensioners
Surely played into the NI decision. Slap pensioners on one cheek, stroke them on the other. Net net.
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
You may see those as well yet
No, “we” may see those yet. It’s the whole crux of this dispute. Are we all “in it together?” Or are we gonna just hammer workers to protect the fortunes of non-workers.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
It appears the triple lock goes with a 2.5% increase rather than 8.5% so big drop in the expected rise for pensioners
No not a big drop, a 2.5% increase.
There hasn't been an 8.5% increase in wages, its an entirely artificial "rise" being missed and a smaller but still considerable increase instead.
This is like Labour saying Cameron was "cutting" then NHS when spending was going up.
To be fair I said in the expected rise under the triple lock
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
They've already said they'll oppose the NI hike as a tax on jobs, to be fair. But there's simply only so far that a party that's in favour of higher taxes can go in moaning about higher taxes, without saying that lower taxes are preferable and undermining itself.
They need to be out there screaming about it and why it's the wrong tax rise. It hits Labour's voters, especially the working poor who can ill afford a tax rise and a likely pay rise deferral.
It's simply the most irresponsible tax rise. Labour will win one day and the Tories have opened the door to tax and spend, worse they've opened the door to tax our enemies to fund our supporters. I fear for this country, it is become nothing more than a gerontocracy where the state exists to slavishly serve the old and everything is hollowed out to make it happen.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "Tory tax bombshell" or "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
And anyway, Labour may be wise to sit and watch the Tories tear themselves apart. There seems to be a few disgruntled Tories on here.....Never interrupt the enemy, and all that.
Norway made sure the resources benefitted its population and largely developed them using state-owned companies... the UK left it up to private companies, and didn't negotiate a good deal. This analysis reckons UK missed out on hundreds of billions of revenue.
BP was state owned at the time. So the British government gained on the privatisation of BP later in the decade.
Now, it may be that the terms offered to companies for exploiting the North Sea were more favourable for the Norwegian government, but it is also worth remembering that when initial licenses were being auctioned, no-one was really sure it was going to work. The UK Continental Shelf Act was in 1963/64 and then there were a succession of dry holes. I forget the actual number, but I think of the first 48 or 49 wells drilled in the North Sea, none found oil. (Although a few found gas, which at the time was massively less valuable.)
Only with Ecofisk (which was the last well Phillips petroleum was planning on drilling, so unhappy were they with the North Sea), that things were transformed.
The Norwegians were lucky. They sold licenses later. And therefore they got the benefit of people knowing that oil was there.
As the link notes - a few extra billion from privatizations doesn't change the overall arithmetic. It wasn't luck - > better judgment & not being ideologically driven to privatise, instead being open for the public sector to take on risk. Ultimately a very costly mistake not to keep equity in case of a large upside.
It would also have been an equally costly mistake to have tried to carry the costs and risks for themselves though. A quick trawl through the history of the North sea and how many companies went bust or were only saved from going bust by being bought out by other companies shows how much risk would have been involved. Only 1 in 7 wells drilled in the North Sea ever found hydrocarbons and only 1 in 11 ever led to development.
The history of BNOC/Britoil is instructive in this case but they were only one amongst very many.
Sharing the risks would have been smart (upside and downside). It doesn't matter that many companies went bust and most wells didn't lead to development... overall it was incredibly profitable and sadly the UK missed out on much of what it could have had.
When you say "the UK missed out", do you mean:
(a) that more oil would have been extracted at lower cost (b) that more tax revenue could have been collected or (c) that British firms could have owned more of the licenses
Ultimately, a certain amount of oil was collected and sold. It generated jobs, tax revenue and a thriving oil industry in the UK. It *may* have been the case that more tax revenue was collectable - but that might also have led to less investment.
It's easy to make perfect decisions with perfect knowledge. People making investment decisions in the 70s and 80s did not have that.
And it is one of the most inhospitable places in the world (or was a t the time) to drill for oil.
I would like to put up a photo of the last time I was offshore in 2013 which would illustrate this well but I lack the technical ability...
Thanks to Robert for showing me how to do this. This was taken from the Solan platform West of Shetlands and shows the rig I was sat on at the time during a small blow. This is the Semi-sub Ocean Valiant, one of the largest drilling units out there.
Is the camera or the rig tilting, or both? Both surely?
The rig. The camera is on a platform fixed to the sea floor. The rig is a semi-submersible. Those legs go down to pontoons about 60ft below the surface and the rig is then floating free and held in place on anchor chains. In a bad storm - the worst you get are up on Haltenbank between the Norwegian and North Seas - the rig will move up and down by up to 50 or more feet. It is known as heaving. Well before that you unlatch from the well and ride it out in what is know as survival draught
That sounds bloody awful.
I've not been on a North Sea rig, but I've been to a lot of oil producing places, and have rapidly come to the conclusion that the intersection of hospitable places, and places with lots of oil is a very small one.
Fort McMurray was, I think, the worst. The combination of a 90% male town, where (with overtime) a 20 year old could earn $200,000/year, and where there was literally nothing to do other than drink, drugs and fight was absolutely horrendous.
Midland, Texas wasn't much better.
And then there's the third world. Projects where Shell or BP or Exxon arrives to build a $5bn LNG plant in a country where the GDP is just $2bn/year. And suddenly the cost of living for the average poor African or PNG-person quadruples. And everything (and everyone) is flown in, so the locals don't even benefit from work. The only thing that flourishes is prostitution and STDs.
Oil industry - you're necessary. But boy can you make a mess.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
That's the whole trouble with opposing the PM. It's lack catching noxious fumes in a net.
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
You may see those as well yet
No, “we” may see those yet. It’s the whole crux of this dispute. Are we all “in it together?” Or are we gonna just hammer workers to protect the fortunes of non-workers.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
It appears the triple lock goes with a 2.5% increase rather than 8.5% so big drop in the expected rise for pensioners
Surely played into the NI decision. Slap pensioners on one cheek, stroke them on the other. Net net.
It is a counter to the fairness argument
It will be fascinating how this pans out in the court of public opinion
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Looks like my support for the Tory Party comes to an end tomorrow, if Beth Rigby is right. 😦
iain watson @iainjwatson It seems @BorisJohnson got a good reception at the reception on the terrace of the house of commons for backbench MPs - perhaps one reason for that is that he doesn't seem to have mentioned hiking national insurance
When you stop and think about it, this is a crazy way to do it.
By all accounts, BoJo is going to announce the intellectual fruit of his loins tomorrow. His great domestic achievement for the ages.
Yet it's been cooked up in Downing Street, nobody really knows what's in it, there wasn't much to go on in the manifesto, a number of Conservative MPs are clearly unhappy...
... and yet, it's going to happen.
Personally, I think it points to the weakness of the PM as a politician and a man; he can't justify his actions, so he seeks to bounce them through. (Other obvious examples are available.) But, having surrounded himself with overambitious preening lickspittles, he'll probably get away with it.
It what he does. It what he always does. It's why, in the end, everyone concludes that Boris isn't a very nice man.
The Government has drawn up plans for an October “firebreak” Covid lockdown should hospitalisations continue at their current level and threaten to overload the NHS, a senior Government scientist has told i.
The member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said the UK is about to enter “an extended peak” of infections and hospitalisations, which are in danger of pushing the NHS beyond breaking point and could force the Government to re-introduce restrictions over the school half term period at the end of next month.
A full lockdown is unlikely and would be a last resort, but there are a range of measures the government could introduce.
“This is essentially the precautionary break that Sage suggested last year,” said the Sage source. “It would be sensible to have contingency plans, and if a lockdown is required, to time it so that it has minimal economic and societal impact.
“We are going to be at a peak, albeit an extended peak, quite soon, so it’s not really the same situation as last year, when failure to reduce prevalence would have resulted in collapse of NHS and people dying in car parks,” he said.
“Hospitals might be overflowing before deaths reach the same level. Acting early will prevent this level.”
It is understood that the Government’s contingency plan for a “firebreak” lockdown could lead to an extension of the half-term, from one week for most schools to two weeks from late October into early November.
I do wish people wouldn't use the word lockdown when it doesn't mean lockdown.
I know the Independent want to sell papers but they should be responsible about their language too.
If there are a NHS crashing number of cases the government will introduce social distancing and masks, lockdown will be the last mitigation.
Indeed I would expect us to go back to Stage 3 first - eg mandatory table service and masks in pubs
Except pretty much everyone knows that this doesn't have any effect on covid at-all, other than to shaft the hospitality sector (again).
It's wrong that everyone should pay the price for something that's happening because of those who refuse to be vaccinated when they had the opportunity.
How about * vaccine passports * restarting the nightingales * clear down non essential NHS capacity to allow for more covid capacity * Tax those who aren't vaccinated to pay for the expected extra medical treatment they'll require * worst case, if capacity is totally shot, triage unvaccinated at a lower priority to everyone else
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "Tory tax bombshell" or "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
And anyway, Labour may be wise to sit and watch the Tories tear themselves apart. There seems to be a few disgruntled Tories on here.....Never interrupt the enemy, and all that.
Yes, best save the powder for once the policy is announced. We have seen quite a few ministers out to "defend the indefensible", only to see the rug pulled out from under them. Labour should save its funding and other proposals until Johnson has laid his cards out.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
Well, looking at front pages if Johnson does u-turn on NI it is going to be massively embarrassing for him.
Boris is not for turning and judging by the polling the public support the rise in NI
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
He’s an arsehole for it. Not getting my vote. None of those three are. And I say that as someone for whom paying a bit more NI is far more personally beneficial than higher income tax or god forbid a wealth tax.
You may see those as well yet
No, “we” may see those yet. It’s the whole crux of this dispute. Are we all “in it together?” Or are we gonna just hammer workers to protect the fortunes of non-workers.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
It appears the triple lock goes with a 2.5% increase rather than 8.5% so big drop in the expected rise for pensioners
No not a big drop, a 2.5% increase.
There hasn't been an 8.5% increase in wages, its an entirely artificial "rise" being missed and a smaller but still considerable increase instead.
This is like Labour saying Cameron was "cutting" then NHS when spending was going up.
Interesting if so. Not getting 6% pension increase would cost a typical pensioner £400 or so. Not paying NI saves roughly 2% of income. So the combination screws low-income pensioners but protects working pensioners (like me), and the better they're earning the more it protects them. I think that if you're a pensioner dependent on the national pension - which by any definition makes you pretty poor - you'll be just as annoyed as people of working age. I don't do class war rhetoric, but explicitly protecting rich pensioners does seem to me to pander to the Conservative core vote in an indefensible way.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
If I was Labour, I'd be lining up people who will lose from this policy and get sob stories lined up from it.
First example would be care staff working on minimum wage who will see their incomes go down because taxes are going up - while those with unearned incomes aren't seeing their taxes go up at all.
Did we clap for care workers only to then give them a tax bill?
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not the hard working families".
"tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."
Where is Starmer's version?
Where is the energy? Where is the hunger?
Where are the Robin Cooks and Gordon Browns taking lumps out of the government at every sitting of the commons?
All this worry about covid meltdown....but still no decision, let alone jabbing, of oldies.
We should have done kids over summer hols, and no jabbering, just jabbing the oldies now.
We are starting with our staff at our NHS Trust around the 20th September. Pfizer boosters along with flu jabs for all our 11,000 or so staff who want it.
I would expect vulnerable people and 80 plus will start around a similar time, maybe begining of October.
Month wasted.
Also: the evidence keeps on mounting that mix-and-match boosts immune response. So, can we please offer Pfizer/Moderna to people who had AZ, and vice-versa.
Looks like my support for the Tory Party comes to an end tomorrow, if Beth Rigby is right. 😦
I am sorry to hear that but all the best
... and shut the door on your way out"
No - I did not say that nor would I
Ok. Just thought I'd spotted some of that Corleone courtesy of yours there. That thing that you do rather well. But maybe I have it wrong this time. Let's agree that I have.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
If I was Labour, I'd be lining up people who will lose from this policy and get sob stories lined up from it.
First example would be care staff working on minimum wage who will see their incomes go down because taxes are going up - while those with unearned incomes aren't seeing their taxes go up at all.
Did we clap for care workers only to then give them a tax bill?
Honestly, I can't for the life of me think why today's Tory party isn't going after unearned income.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
Taxes should be levelled evenly and only higher on things you wish to discourage.
We levy tax highest on offering people jobs and on working for a living. Those two are what we wish to discourage?
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
Twitter. It's relevance to the real world is low. This is Labour's problem, they think that by making a few tweets and maybe a Guardian editorial the work is done. There's no energy and it's allowed the Tories to dominate the agenda.
I was just eyeballing the European Covid case numbers, and it seems that Germany is still very much on the rise, Italy never really had a third wave, while Spain and France are seeing pretty big drops. With Spain, Covid prevalence seems to be almost back to the pre-Summer lows - which seems very odd considering they opened their nightclubs and invited tourists.
It just goes to show: luck is a much bigger factor here than people like to admit.
I was just eyeballing the European Covid case numbers, and it seems that Germany is still very much on the rise, Italy never really had a third wave, while Spain and France are seeing pretty big drops. With Spain, Covid prevalence seems to be almost back to the pre-Summer lows - which seems very odd considering they opened their nightclubs and invited tourists.
It just goes to show: luck is a much bigger factor here than people like to admit.
Is it luck?
Third waves across the West seem to be the reverse of first and second waves.
So Italy (hit hardest first and second time) is getting it mild now. Cornwall and the Highlands and Germany (relatively let off easy first and second time) are getting hit harder now.
The exception seems to be where vaccine takeup is low, permitting a third wave even after a higher first and second - eg Florida?
‘2. Look out for mitigations. MPs I've spoken to tonight think there will be tweaks to soften the pill of a NICs rise that hits younger and poorer workers hardest. Might NICs be extended to everyone over 65 too, or could there be a surcharge for the over 50s?‘
A couple of thoughts about the politics of opposition here.
If the hope is to stop Boris in his tracks, it's probably too late. You'd need an awful lot of Conservative rebels on what would probably be a 3 line whip to do that. Basically, if you want a government to be responsive to pressure, you don't give it an 80 seat majority.
Second, there's an opportunity for a smart opposition here. One of the comforting stories Conservatives tell themselves is that, even if old Bozza is a bit of an idiot, nice young Master Sunak is heir apparent and he is much more agreeable and competent. His fingerprints are all over this though. And, whatever his considerable talents, he does have the political disadvantage of being very very wealthy. Not his fault, but it makes him suboptimal for fronting a tax rise that hits work not wealth. Howling at this (and it will be howling, for it can't be stopped, this is why the executive power grab that BoJo loves is a bad thing) needs to make sure that Dishi Rishi becomes Selfish Stingy Sunak in the public mind as much as possible.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
Taxes should be levelled evenly and only higher on things you wish to discourage.
We levy tax highest on offering people jobs and on working for a living. Those two are what we wish to discourage?
Its insanity.
Once upon a time inequality of income and wealth was something we wanted to discourage, at least to an extent, which is why progressive income tax was instituted.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
Twitter. It's relevance to the real world is low. This is Labour's problem, they think that by making a few tweets and maybe a Guardian editorial the work is done. There's no energy and it's allowed the Tories to dominate the agenda.
Even at its own basic level this tweet fails.
"would hit low earners"? No!!! "will hit earners hard from next April"
Better still - say "just after Christmas" (when the credit card bills are coming)
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
Taxes should be levelled evenly and only higher on things you wish to discourage.
We levy tax highest on offering people jobs and on working for a living. Those two are what we wish to discourage?
Its insanity.
Once upon a time inequality of income and wealth was something we wanted to discourage, at least to an extent, which is why progressive income tax was instituted.
How does letting unearned incomes be taxed less than earned ones discourage inequality of income and wealth?
If for instance someone accumulates a property portfolio and extracts an income charging rent on that, then why that worthy of being taxed less than someone going out to work for a living?
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
This romanianCanadian british lass can play a bit...won first set.
On her at 100s for the event. Big big star about to erupt, I think. Spoty possible also.
Good luck. I've had a small punt for this as well but I really can't see her troubling the SPotY judges until she wins Wimbledon. This may be a grand slam event but I doubt most people are watching. Now she has reached the quarter-finals, this may start to change but not enough.
One thing that might help Emma Radacanu in SPotY is if she picks up some mainstream adverts on the back of this excellent US Open run. (She is now around 7/1 fifth- or sixth-best in the betting for the US Open though, even after reaching the quarter-finals tonight.)
Problem is it's all been done without being broadcast on any kind of normal tv channel. And using amazon prime to watch live sport is a right pain in the arse.
All this worry about covid meltdown....but still no decision, let alone jabbing, of oldies.
We should have done kids over summer hols, and no jabbering, just jabbing the oldies now.
We are starting with our staff at our NHS Trust around the 20th September. Pfizer boosters along with flu jabs for all our 11,000 or so staff who want it.
I would expect vulnerable people and 80 plus will start around a similar time, maybe begining of October.
Month wasted.
Is that true?
The efficacy of the vaccine wears off. You don't want to jab people way before the peak comes.
Presumably, some modelling has gone into this, and it is more effective to jab in Oct/Nov, so more people are protected in Dec/Jan.
It is not necessarily the case that it is most effective to jab now.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Rachel Reeves tweet
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
Twitter. It's relevance to the real world is low. This is Labour's problem, they think that by making a few tweets and maybe a Guardian editorial the work is done. There's no energy and it's allowed the Tories to dominate the agenda.
Even at its own basic level this tweet fails.
"would hit low earners"? No!!! "will hit earners hard from next April"
Better still - say "just after Christmas" (when the credit card bills are coming)
Not sure "misguided" is a potent word either.
Sharpen up.
"This Tory tax is going to hit everyone in this country who works hard and plays by the rules and at the same time it protects rich Tory retirees from contributing any costs for social care"
It doesn't matter if it's not technically true, it will get the government on the defensive and have to explain why it's not true and draw attention to the bits that are. It's as if Labour learned nothing from being beaten by a bus with a catchy slogan.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
Its higher risk but higher reward, that's why people go for the investment.
How about investing in property - why should a landlord extracting rents be taxed less than somebody going out to work for a living?
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
That's why CGT is 20%, to encourage risk taking. Anyone investing in dividend stocks isn't exactly taking much risk.
This romanianCanadian british lass can play a bit...won first set.
On her at 100s for the event. Big big star about to erupt, I think. Spoty possible also.
Good luck. I've had a small punt for this as well but I really can't see her troubling the SPotY judges until she wins Wimbledon. This may be a grand slam event but I doubt most people are watching. Now she has reached the quarter-finals, this may start to change but not enough.
One thing that might help Emma Radacanu in SPotY is if she picks up some mainstream adverts on the back of this excellent US Open run. (She is now around 7/1 fifth- or sixth-best in the betting for the US Open though, even after reaching the quarter-finals tonight.)
Problem is it's all been done without being broadcast on any kind of normal tv channel. And using amazon prime to watch live sport is a right pain in the arse.
All apps are shit ways to watch telly, hence why Virgin cable does so well. You get actual channels and it integrates Netflix, Prime, YouTube etc into a single platform.
Faffing around with apps is crap when all you want is to flick on the telly.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
That's why CGT is 20%, to encourage risk taking. Anyone investing in dividend stocks isn't exactly taking much risk.
The 7.5% basic tax on dividends is completely ridiculous.
And I say that as someone who takes advantage of it via my ltd company.
Personally I’d just tax all wealth income inc inheritance same as income tax. Drop income tax a bit to compensate and make it revenue neutral.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
Its higher risk but higher reward, that's why people go for the investment.
How about investing in property - why should a landlord extracting rents be taxed less than somebody going out to work for a living?
It's not necessarily higher risk either. I'm just as likely to lose my job in an economic downturn as an investor is to see the capital values drop or dividends halted. We also do incentivise risk taking by taxing capital gain at a much lower rate than income.
Which one's the best TV show? Well The Wire is the best TV show. Ok what's the second best? There is no second best. There is no second best TV show. There's a TV show and its called The Wire right? There is no second best ok
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
Taxes should be levelled evenly and only higher on things you wish to discourage.
We levy tax highest on offering people jobs and on working for a living. Those two are what we wish to discourage?
Its insanity.
Once upon a time inequality of income and wealth was something we wanted to discourage, at least to an extent, which is why progressive income tax was instituted.
How does letting unearned incomes be taxed less than earned ones discourage inequality of income and wealth?
If for instance someone accumulates a property portfolio and extracts an income charging rent on that, then why that worthy of being taxed less than someone going out to work for a living?
Um, I may be out of touch having lived in the US for the last ten years, but isn’t all income in the UK counted for deciding which tax band you fall into? (It is here.) In that sense employment is taxed less progressively as there’s an point where NI reduces from, what is it, 12% to 2%, and used to taper to 0%.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
Isn't the issue that we don't differentiate between high risk and low risk activities with capital?
I've just remortgaged my house to put the cash into a management buyout of the struggling firm for which I've worked for the last ten years. This is a fairly risky activity - I think I can make a go of it, but it's not impossible that I'm wrong and will lose the lot. I'm also expecting to have to work very hard for the next few years, whilst at the same time to be taking almost nothing out beyond a substance wage - the business needs time to retrench and to build up its working capital before I even think about trying to pull anything back out.
I could instead have chucked the same money down as a deposit on a BTL house, which is by comparison virtually effort and risk free.
I would argue that what I'm doing with the business is far more valuable to society - I'll be providing jobs for a number of employees, as well as useful services to clients. If I become a landlord, I'm just another cash sucking rentier.
Unfortunately, for tax purposes, we treat both sorts of activities the same. This is neither fair nor sensible.
Frankly no idea who'll win most seats in Canada. Looks a toss up right now with 2 weeks to go. Tories have average 3% lead over the past 10 polls since the first debate. But, one firm, EKOS, is responsible for most of that. 3 polls of 6%+ leads. The other 7 polls are averaging a 1.5 lead. Which isn't greatly different to last time. One thing which is not happening is the NDP aren't being squeezed. Stable at 19/20%. Trudeau leading on Best PM. But having the greatest net negatives. Confusing. But I'll back anything better than evens for either for most seats. Signs the Tories are becoming a little more efficient. Liberals less so. But Trudeau still wins comfortably on an equal vote share.
More detail on tomorrow’s manifesto-busting national insurance increase: * The hike will be branded a health & social care levy * It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts * Unlike normal NI it will also be paid by working pensioners
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
Taxes should be levelled evenly and only higher on things you wish to discourage.
We levy tax highest on offering people jobs and on working for a living. Those two are what we wish to discourage?
Its insanity.
Once upon a time inequality of income and wealth was something we wanted to discourage, at least to an extent, which is why progressive income tax was instituted.
How does letting unearned incomes be taxed less than earned ones discourage inequality of income and wealth?
If for instance someone accumulates a property portfolio and extracts an income charging rent on that, then why that worthy of being taxed less than someone going out to work for a living?
Um, I may be out of touch having lived in the US for the last ten years, but isn’t all income in the UK counted for deciding which tax band you fall into? (It is here.) In that sense employment is taxed less progressively as there’s an point where NI reduces from, what is it, 12% to 2%, and used to taper to 0%.
Yes you are out of touch (no offence).
NI doesn't depend upon your tax band, it depends upon your income from your employer. As a result unearned income is completely untaxed for NI because it isn't coming from an employer. It may attract Income Tax, but it doesn't attract National Insurance.
One very little known fact is that if someone has two completely unrelated jobs they can claim the tax-free allowance for NI with both employers.
More detail on tomorrow’s manifesto-busting national insurance increase: * The hike will be branded a health & social care levy * It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts * Unlike normal NI it will also be paid by working pensioners
More detail on tomorrow’s manifesto-busting national insurance increase: * The hike will be branded a health & social care levy * It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts * Unlike normal NI it will also be paid by working pensioners
So, if you're of working age, you're going to be paying more.
If you're of pensionable age but still working, you're going to be paying more.
If you are on UC, your benefits are about to be cut.
If you rely on a state pension, that's not going up as much as you may have hoped. (Justified, but the explanation has been a disgrace).
Anyone notice who is missing from this list?
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. But quite possibly excellent cynical politics.
"It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts"
Like NI and Fuel Duty....legally ringfenced means nothing, as if you are in power, you get to change the law.
It is also completely 100% meaningless because the NHS and Social Care combined is never going to be on less than 2% taxation.
If you wanted to cut NHS funding in the future then still give this 2% to the NHS but reduce the non-ringfenced element. This rise is entirely eliminated from the NHS budget then, but also still ringfenced.
More detail on tomorrow’s manifesto-busting national insurance increase: * The hike will be branded a health & social care levy * It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts * Unlike normal NI it will also be paid by working pensioners
More detail on tomorrow’s manifesto-busting national insurance increase: * The hike will be branded a health & social care levy * It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts * Unlike normal NI it will also be paid by working pensioners
So, if you're of working age, you're going to be paying more.
If you're of pensionable age but still working, you're going to be paying more.
If you are on UC, your benefits are about to be cut.
If you rely on a state pension, that's not going up as much as you may have hoped. (Justified, but the explanation has been a disgrace).
Anyone notice who is missing from this list?
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. But quite possibly excellent cynical politics.
"It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts"
Like NI and Fuel Duty....legally ringfenced means nothing, as if you are in power, you get to change the law.
It is also completely 100% meaningless because the NHS and Social Care combined is never going to be on less than 2% taxation.
If you wanted to cut NHS funding in the future then still give this 2% to the NHS but reduce the non-ringfenced element. This rise is entirely eliminated from the NHS budget then, but also still ringfenced.
I was just eyeballing the European Covid case numbers, and it seems that Germany is still very much on the rise, Italy never really had a third wave, while Spain and France are seeing pretty big drops. With Spain, Covid prevalence seems to be almost back to the pre-Summer lows - which seems very odd considering they opened their nightclubs and invited tourists.
It just goes to show: luck is a much bigger factor here than people like to admit.
Is it luck?
Third waves across the West seem to be the reverse of first and second waves.
So Italy (hit hardest first and second time) is getting it mild now. Cornwall and the Highlands and Germany (relatively let off easy first and second time) are getting hit harder now.
The exception seems to be where vaccine takeup is low, permitting a third wave even after a higher first and second - eg Florida?
I'm just very surprised that Italy + Germany + France + Spain have case numbers that are below that of the UK.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
They do tax them at the same level as income - it just comes out in multiple different "slices": the first of which is corporation tax.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
Isn't the issue that we don't differentiate between high risk and low risk activities with capital?
I've just remortgaged my house to put the cash into a management buyout of the struggling firm for which I've worked for the last ten years. This is a fairly risky activity - I think I can make a go of it, but it's not impossible that I'm wrong and will lose the lot. I'm also expecting to have to work very hard for the next few years, whilst at the same time to be taking almost nothing out beyond a substance wage - the business needs time to retrench and to build up its working capital before I even think about trying to pull anything back out.
I could instead have chucked the same money down as a deposit on a BTL house, which is by comparison virtually effort and risk free.
I would argue that what I'm doing with the business is far more valuable to society - I'll be providing jobs for a number of employees, as well as useful services to clients. If I become a landlord, I'm just another cash sucking rentier.
Unfortunately, for tax purposes, we treat both sorts of activities the same. This is neither fair nor sensible.
Your first £10m of capital gains on your firm (if things work out) will be at 10%, which compares pretty well to your BTL property.
More detail on tomorrow’s manifesto-busting national insurance increase: * The hike will be branded a health & social care levy * It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts * Unlike normal NI it will also be paid by working pensioners
So, if you're of working age, you're going to be paying more.
If you're of pensionable age but still working, you're going to be paying more.
If you are on UC, your benefits are about to be cut.
If you rely on a state pension, that's not going up as much as you may have hoped. (Justified, but the explanation has been a disgrace).
Anyone notice who is missing from this list?
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. But quite possibly excellent cynical politics.
"It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts"
Like NI and Fuel Duty....legally ringfenced means nothing, as if you are in power, you get to change the law.
It is also completely 100% meaningless because the NHS and Social Care combined is never going to be on less than 2% taxation.
If you wanted to cut NHS funding in the future then still give this 2% to the NHS but reduce the non-ringfenced element. This rise is entirely eliminated from the NHS budget then, but also still ringfenced.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Forgive my ignorance…
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
No. Basically all NFTs all currently purchased in Ethereum, Solana and Cardono, so I went a loaded up in a bag of those crypto 3-4 weeks or so ago, and then slowly been selling them back into the market. It is blindingly obvious especially with Ethereum, all that gas fees (the cost of doing transactions), would force the price up, as the idiots fight over first trying to get an NFT at release, and then all the trading of them.
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Forgive my ignorance…
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
No. Basically all NFTs all currently purchased in Ethereum, Solana and Cardono, so I went a loaded up in a bag of those crypto 3-4 weeks or so ago, and then slowly been selling them back into the market. It is blindingly obvious especially with Ethereum, all that gas fees (the cost of doing transactions), would force the price up, as the idiots fight over first trying to get an NFT at release, and then all the trading of them.
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
If you're paying $300 to do a transaction then something is FUBARd.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Forgive my ignorance…
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
No. Basically all NFTs all currently purchased in Ethereum, Solana and Cardono, so I went a loaded up in a bag of those crypto 3-4 weeks or so ago, and then slowly been selling them back into the market. It is blindingly obvious especially with Ethereum, all that gas fees (the cost of doing transactions), would force the price up, as the idiots fight over first trying to get an NFT at release, and then all the trading of them.
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
If you're paying $300 to do a transaction then something is FUBARd.
Its worse....they are paying these transaction fees, but often the network is so busy, by the time they complete, the thing they are trying to buy has been sold to somebody else....and you don't get your transaction fee back!
The problem is Ethereum wasn't designed to have millions of people trying to hammer some contract all at the same time to buy a silly avatar, as if they are bidding on an ebay auction.
There are a whole load of solutions to sit ontop of Ethereum being worked on, and these other currencies like Solana, that can just all of this much faster and more efficiently already (and hence transaction costs are much much lower).
I wouldn't bet my house on any of this stuff, but it seemed like an easy win to buy up these coins and sell them back when all the madness kicked off. I am not sure what ultimately stops a Google or Apple developing their own alternative to these approaches, they have much bigger resources and the top talent.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
Isn't the issue that we don't differentiate between high risk and low risk activities with capital?
I've just remortgaged my house to put the cash into a management buyout of the struggling firm for which I've worked for the last ten years. This is a fairly risky activity - I think I can make a go of it, but it's not impossible that I'm wrong and will lose the lot. I'm also expecting to have to work very hard for the next few years, whilst at the same time to be taking almost nothing out beyond a substance wage - the business needs time to retrench and to build up its working capital before I even think about trying to pull anything back out.
I could instead have chucked the same money down as a deposit on a BTL house, which is by comparison virtually effort and risk free.
I would argue that what I'm doing with the business is far more valuable to society - I'll be providing jobs for a number of employees, as well as useful services to clients. If I become a landlord, I'm just another cash sucking rentier.
Unfortunately, for tax purposes, we treat both sorts of activities the same. This is neither fair nor sensible.
Your first £10m of capital gains on your firm (if things work out) will be at 10%, which compares pretty well to your BTL property.
Trouble is that's still rather promoting short termism - it's of no value unless I sell the business. If things go OK, I'll not be thinking of selling out for about 30 years.
Labour are useless. Where is the "Tory tax bombshell" line or "Tax rise on workers"?
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
Perhaps it is wise for Labour to actually wait for an announcement to be made before they respond? They'd look pretty foolish if they ran with "tax rise on workers" if the whole proposal is pulled in the next couple of days, which is quite possible.
If it gets pulled they look great because their opposition to it has forced a u-turn. Labour just had no energy. They're in opposition but look and feel like a spent force that's recently been kicked out after 20 years in government.
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
Well said.
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
That's the worst one. For example, I have significant dividend income from a start up company I backed 5 or so years ago that has now become profitable after floating and is paying dividends, because it's not in an ISA the income is taxable but I don't pay any NI on it. It's ridiculous that money I do nothing for has a lesser rate of tax than money I go out and work hard for. Something in this country is broken and no one seems to want to fix it.
To get income you go and do a day's work and someone hands you money at the end of it. Low risk.
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
Isn't the issue that we don't differentiate between high risk and low risk activities with capital?
I've just remortgaged my house to put the cash into a management buyout of the struggling firm for which I've worked for the last ten years. This is a fairly risky activity - I think I can make a go of it, but it's not impossible that I'm wrong and will lose the lot. I'm also expecting to have to work very hard for the next few years, whilst at the same time to be taking almost nothing out beyond a substance wage - the business needs time to retrench and to build up its working capital before I even think about trying to pull anything back out.
I could instead have chucked the same money down as a deposit on a BTL house, which is by comparison virtually effort and risk free.
I would argue that what I'm doing with the business is far more valuable to society - I'll be providing jobs for a number of employees, as well as useful services to clients. If I become a landlord, I'm just another cash sucking rentier.
Unfortunately, for tax purposes, we treat both sorts of activities the same. This is neither fair nor sensible.
Your first £10m of capital gains on your firm (if things work out) will be at 10%, which compares pretty well to your BTL property.
Trouble is that's still rather promoting short termism - it's of no value unless I sell the business. If things go OK, I'll not be thinking of selling out for about 30 years.
Only £1m now isn't it - but it has a fancier name - Business Asset Disposal Relief
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Forgive my ignorance…
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
No. Basically all NFTs all currently purchased in Ethereum, Solana and Cardono, so I went a loaded up in a bag of those crypto 3-4 weeks or so ago, and then slowly been selling them back into the market. It is blindingly obvious especially with Ethereum, all that gas fees (the cost of doing transactions), would force the price up, as the idiots fight over first trying to get an NFT at release, and then all the trading of them.
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
If you're paying $300 to do a transaction then something is FUBARd.
Its worse....they are paying these transaction fees, but often the network is so busy, by the time they complete, the thing they are trying to buy has been sold to somebody else....and you don't get your transaction fee back!
The problem is Ethereum wasn't designed to have millions of people trying to hammer some contract all at the same time to buy a silly avatar, as if they are bidding on an ebay auction.
There are a whole load of solutions to sit ontop of Ethereum being worked on, and these other currencies like Solana, that can just all of this much faster and more efficiently already (and hence transaction costs are much much lower).
I wouldn't bet my house on any of it, but it seemed like an easy win to buy up these coins and sell them back when all the madness kicked off.
Out of curiosity, how does one create an NFT, and what if anything determines what people are willing to pay for it?
I mean, they appear to be the ultimate in vapourware, but what is the barrier to entry which is preventing people from generating more vapour at such a rate as to crash the prices to nothing - as it would seem to the casual observer that generating a mediocre gif or two then selling it for the price of a modest house is a game many many people would like to get into?
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Forgive my ignorance…
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
No. Basically all NFTs all currently purchased in Ethereum, Solana and Cardono, so I went a loaded up in a bag of those crypto 3-4 weeks or so ago, and then slowly been selling them back into the market. It is blindingly obvious especially with Ethereum, all that gas fees (the cost of doing transactions), would force the price up, as the idiots fight over first trying to get an NFT at release, and then all the trading of them.
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
If you're paying $300 to do a transaction then something is FUBARd.
Its worse....they are paying these transaction fees, but often the network is so busy, by the time they complete, the thing they are trying to buy has been sold to somebody else....and you don't get your transaction fee back!
The problem is Ethereum wasn't designed to have millions of people trying to hammer some contract all at the same time to buy a silly avatar, as if they are bidding on an ebay auction.
There are a whole load of solutions to sit ontop of Ethereum being worked on, and these other currencies like Solana, that can just all of this much faster and more efficiently already (and hence transaction costs are much much lower).
I wouldn't bet my house on any of this stuff, but it seemed like an easy win to buy up these coins and sell them back when all the madness kicked off. I am not sure what ultimately stops a Google or Apple developing their own alternative to these approaches, they have much bigger resources and the top talent.
My guess is that big profitable tech companies are staying well clear of these chains because they could stand to lose a lot of credibility as well as potentially money and end up in a legal morass if things go tits up.
If on the other hand chains actually start working and being meaningful for actual trades and not simply as a Ponzi or tax dodge, then I suspect the tech companies could move pretty swiftly to sort it out.
Which would have the potential to make Bitcoin "investments" worth as much as Blockbuster Video shares.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Forgive my ignorance…
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
No. Basically all NFTs all currently purchased in Ethereum, Solana and Cardono, so I went a loaded up in a bag of those crypto 3-4 weeks or so ago, and then slowly been selling them back into the market. It is blindingly obvious especially with Ethereum, all that gas fees (the cost of doing transactions), would force the price up, as the idiots fight over first trying to get an NFT at release, and then all the trading of them.
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
If you're paying $300 to do a transaction then something is FUBARd.
Its worse....they are paying these transaction fees, but often the network is so busy, by the time they complete, the thing they are trying to buy has been sold to somebody else....and you don't get your transaction fee back!
The problem is Ethereum wasn't designed to have millions of people trying to hammer some contract all at the same time to buy a silly avatar, as if they are bidding on an ebay auction.
There are a whole load of solutions to sit ontop of Ethereum being worked on, and these other currencies like Solana, that can just all of this much faster and more efficiently already (and hence transaction costs are much much lower).
I wouldn't bet my house on any of it, but it seemed like an easy win to buy up these coins and sell them back when all the madness kicked off.
Out of curiosity, how does one create an NFT, and what if anything determines what people are willing to pay for it?
I mean, they appear to be the ultimate in vapourware, but what is the barrier to entry which is preventing people from generating more vapour at such a rate as to crash the prices to nothing - as it would seem to the casual observer that generating a mediocre gif or two then selling it for the price of a modest house is a game many many people would like to get into?
It is now fairly trivial to create one, people have written code to do it and made it available. It is essentially a "contract", that says the buyer owns a particular digital asset and that contract is stored on the block chain. Some assets are also stored there, but most aren't.
There are public market places, equivalent to ebay, so the market decides what people are willing to pay for them.
And yes, the barrier to entry is ridiculously low, so every day there are 10s of new "collections", that often contain 10,000 pieces.
I think ultimately there will be more complicated contracts, where there are digital rights and royalties will be collected automatically if somebody wants to make use of that NFT say in an advert.
But there is where I can see a "proper" company designing the tech for it, not trying to ramp this into a system that was designed to move money around.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
IIUC they're using a custodial system, they're not actually sending each other bitcoins on the blockchain. This system originally tried to use lightning but it was impractical, so they said they were using an internal lightning network to route funds between themselves.
President Nayib Bukele on Monday said that El Salvador has bought its first 200 bitcoins, as the country approaches the planned formalization of the cryptocurrency as legal tender.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I have had a very fun 2 weeks selling the shovels to all the NFT idiots.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Forgive my ignorance…
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
No. Basically all NFTs all currently purchased in Ethereum, Solana and Cardono, so I went a loaded up in a bag of those crypto 3-4 weeks or so ago, and then slowly been selling them back into the market. It is blindingly obvious especially with Ethereum, all that gas fees (the cost of doing transactions), would force the price up, as the idiots fight over first trying to get an NFT at release, and then all the trading of them.
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
If you're paying $300 to do a transaction then something is FUBARd.
Its worse....they are paying these transaction fees, but often the network is so busy, by the time they complete, the thing they are trying to buy has been sold to somebody else....and you don't get your transaction fee back!
The problem is Ethereum wasn't designed to have millions of people trying to hammer some contract all at the same time to buy a silly avatar, as if they are bidding on an ebay auction.
There are a whole load of solutions to sit ontop of Ethereum being worked on, and these other currencies like Solana, that can just all of this much faster and more efficiently already (and hence transaction costs are much much lower).
I wouldn't bet my house on any of this stuff, but it seemed like an easy win to buy up these coins and sell them back when all the madness kicked off. I am not sure what ultimately stops a Google or Apple developing their own alternative to these approaches, they have much bigger resources and the top talent.
My guess is that big profitable tech companies are staying well clear of these chains because they could stand to lose a lot of credibility as well as potentially money and end up in a legal morass if things go tits up.
If on the other hand chains actually start working and being meaningful for actual trades and not simply as a Ponzi or tax dodge, then I suspect the tech companies could move pretty swiftly to sort it out.
Which would have the potential to make Bitcoin "investments" worth as much as Blockbuster Video shares.
Well Bitcoin is a bit different, it is now being used as a store of value. Given inflation and all the money printing, big institutions are now starting to use it to stuff money under the mattress.
All the other "smart" cryptos, there are some things I can see perhaps might work, distributed finance, being able to give out micro loans worldwide etc.
But a lot of the projects are open source, so if Amazon wants to make their own, they can already see what works and what doesn't....and then they can deploy 1000s of engineers and limitless resources to code up a system to say do blockchain stock keeping and also sell that tech to all their partners, integrated into cloud via AWS.
I am not sure what ultimately stops a Google or Apple developing their own alternative to these approaches, they have much bigger resources and the top talent.
A single company running a system like this without crippling identity checks and compliance costs is illegal pretty much everywhere, and the requirements vary from country to country. That's why it's being done on p2p networks that no individual is responsible for.
There's no shortage of engineering talent working on scaling these systems, good engineers will make more money and have more fun outside google or apple. Making p2p consensus systems scale is just a hard engineering problem, that's why it's not getting solved overnight.
Most of crypto now feels a lot like a game where the ultimate goal is a game of musical chairs, such that when the music stops you are the one with the bitcoin and the price is very high, then that is the final dump.
Most of crypto now feels a lot like a game where the ultimate goal is a game of musical chairs, such that when the music stops you are the one with the bitcoin and the price is very high, then that is the final dump.
I feel like I need a PhD to understand this subject.
Comments
NI it is.
Would it be rude to point out that this is a tip of the old hat from Johnson to that master of finance and politics, Gordon Brown?
Of course it will annoy some conservatives, but he is apparently to announce it in the HOC and then have a joint press conference with Rishi and Sajid Javid
This is a big moment in politics
It’s a revelatory feeling not voting, or caring who wins.
Screw the lot of them. I am so angry.
I never thought Sunak would morph in Brown. I win £5000 if he becomes our next PM so selfishly I'd love to see that, but politically were it not for that I'd want him to lose now.
iain watson
@iainjwatson
It seems
@BorisJohnson
got a good reception at the reception on the terrace of the house of commons for backbench MPs - perhaps one reason for that is that he doesn't seem to have mentioned hiking national insurance
In reality, the money will be eaten by the NHS in about a week, after which it will resume its ceaseless demands for more, and bugger all will actually get into the care system.
This only constitutes a big moment in politics if it opens the floodgates to a huge Old Labour-style programme of tax-and-spend. By itself it's a token gesture.
Labour are a weaker opposition than the Tories in 1997 or 2001. They've got no clue and their leader is fool.
As a political movement, feels to me that British conservatism has become intellectually bankrupt. It no longer has any guiding principles beyond protecting the interests of its client voters. HY practically admitted as much earlier.
There hasn't been an 8.5% increase in wages, its an entirely artificial "rise" being missed and a smaller but still considerable increase instead.
This is like Labour saying Cameron was "cutting" then NHS when spending was going up.
And memo to Labour: don't call it a tax on young people.
Call it a tax on workers.
(Just kidding 😉)
It's simply the most irresponsible tax rise. Labour will win one day and the Tories have opened the door to tax and spend, worse they've opened the door to tax our enemies to fund our supporters. I fear for this country, it is become nothing more than a gerontocracy where the state exists to slavishly serve the old and everything is hollowed out to make it happen.
One wonders whether Guy Fawkes had a point.
And anyway, Labour may be wise to sit and watch the Tories tear themselves apart. There seems to be a few disgruntled Tories on here.....Never interrupt the enemy, and all that.
Fort McMurray was, I think, the worst. The combination of a 90% male town, where (with overtime) a 20 year old could earn $200,000/year, and where there was literally nothing to do other than drink, drugs and fight was absolutely horrendous.
Midland, Texas wasn't much better.
And then there's the third world. Projects where Shell or BP or Exxon arrives to build a $5bn LNG plant in a country where the GDP is just $2bn/year. And suddenly the cost of living for the average poor African or PNG-person quadruples. And everything (and everyone) is flown in, so the locals don't even benefit from work. The only thing that flourishes is prostitution and STDs.
Oil industry - you're necessary. But boy can you make a mess.
It will be fascinating how this pans out in the court of public opinion
The NI rise has been briefed widely enough than any backtrack will be seen as a significant u-turn.
By all accounts, BoJo is going to announce the intellectual fruit of his loins tomorrow. His great domestic achievement for the ages.
Yet it's been cooked up in Downing Street, nobody really knows what's in it, there wasn't much to go on in the manifesto, a number of Conservative MPs are clearly unhappy...
... and yet, it's going to happen.
Personally, I think it points to the weakness of the PM as a politician and a man; he can't justify his actions, so he seeks to bounce them through. (Other obvious examples are available.) But, having surrounded himself with overambitious preening lickspittles, he'll probably get away with it.
It what he does. It what he always does. It's why, in the end, everyone concludes that Boris isn't a very nice man.
How about
* vaccine passports
* restarting the nightingales
* clear down non essential NHS capacity to allow for more covid capacity
* Tax those who aren't vaccinated to pay for the expected extra medical treatment they'll require
* worst case, if capacity is totally shot, triage unvaccinated at a lower priority to everyone else
All an Opposition needs is just enough of a catchphrase to be taken seriously - preferably one that can be boiled down to a few words that can be repeated ad nauseum - not a full detailed plan.
But they can't even be able to come up with that.
I'm not a Labour supporter so don't back their worldview but if I was Labour I'd be thinking along the lines of going hard on the fact NI isn't paid on unearned income and say something like "tax the wealthiest not hard working families".
‘A rise in National Insurance would hit low earners and young people hard, and place an enormous burden on businesses trying to get back on their feet.
The Conservative's unfair and misguided approach shows they’re out of touch and out of ideas.’
https://twitter.com/rachelreevesmp/status/1434766573584138245?s=21
First example would be care staff working on minimum wage who will see their incomes go down because taxes are going up - while those with unearned incomes aren't seeing their taxes go up at all.
Did we clap for care workers only to then give them a tax bill?
Where is Starmer's version?
Where is the energy? Where is the hunger?
Where are the Robin Cooks and Gordon Browns taking lumps out of the government at every sitting of the commons?
We levy tax highest on offering people jobs and on working for a living. Those two are what we wish to discourage?
Its insanity.
It just goes to show: luck is a much bigger factor here than people like to admit.
Third waves across the West seem to be the reverse of first and second waves.
So Italy (hit hardest first and second time) is getting it mild now.
Cornwall and the Highlands and Germany (relatively let off easy first and second time) are getting hit harder now.
The exception seems to be where vaccine takeup is low, permitting a third wave even after a higher first and second - eg Florida?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1434999994420011016?s=21
Lib 33%
BQ 28%
Con 20%
NDP 13%
Green 3%
PPC 2%
https://2g2ckk18vixp3neolz4b6605-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Rapport-politique-federale-1-sept-2021-VF.pdf
Changes since 2019 general election:
Lib -1.3%
BQ -4.4%
Con +4.0%
NDP +2.2%
Green -1.5%
PPC +0.5%
If the hope is to stop Boris in his tracks, it's probably too late. You'd need an awful lot of Conservative rebels on what would probably be a 3 line whip to do that. Basically, if you want a government to be responsive to pressure, you don't give it an 80 seat majority.
Second, there's an opportunity for a smart opposition here. One of the comforting stories Conservatives tell themselves is that, even if old Bozza is a bit of an idiot, nice young Master Sunak is heir apparent and he is much more agreeable and competent. His fingerprints are all over this though. And, whatever his considerable talents, he does have the political disadvantage of being very very wealthy. Not his fault, but it makes him suboptimal for fronting a tax rise that hits work not wealth.
Howling at this (and it will be howling, for it can't be stopped, this is why the executive power grab that BoJo loves is a bad thing) needs to make sure that Dishi Rishi becomes Selfish Stingy Sunak in the public mind as much as possible.
"would hit low earners"? No!!! "will hit earners hard from next April"
Better still - say "just after Christmas" (when the credit card bills are coming)
Not sure "misguided" is a potent word either.
Sharpen up.
If for instance someone accumulates a property portfolio and extracts an income charging rent on that, then why that worthy of being taxed less than someone going out to work for a living?
Dividends/capital gains are high risk... You might never see them, you might actually lose money in the pursuit of them.
If the government taxes these at the same level as income what would that do for investment?
The efficacy of the vaccine wears off. You don't want to jab people way before the peak comes.
Presumably, some modelling has gone into this, and it is more effective to jab in Oct/Nov, so more people are protected in Dec/Jan.
It is not necessarily the case that it is most effective to jab now.
It doesn't matter if it's not technically true, it will get the government on the defensive and have to explain why it's not true and draw attention to the bits that are. It's as if Labour learned nothing from being beaten by a bus with a catchy slogan.
How about investing in property - why should a landlord extracting rents be taxed less than somebody going out to work for a living?
Faffing around with apps is crap when all you want is to flick on the telly.
And I say that as someone who takes advantage of it via my ltd company.
Personally I’d just tax all wealth income inc inheritance same as income tax. Drop income tax a bit to compensate and make it revenue neutral.
Could not agree with you more GG!
https://twitter.com/brechincityfc/status/1434789825299812354
https://twitter.com/MikeMcDonald89/status/1435012453461463045?s=20
https://www.reuters.com/article/el-salvador-bitcoin-bukele/el-salvador-buys-its-first-200-bitcoins-president-says-idUSL1N2Q81D6?edition-redirect=uk
I've just remortgaged my house to put the cash into a management buyout of the struggling firm for which I've worked for the last ten years. This is a fairly risky activity - I think I can make a go of it, but it's not impossible that I'm wrong and will lose the lot. I'm also expecting to have to work very hard for the next few years, whilst at the same time to be taking almost nothing out beyond a substance wage - the business needs time to retrench and to build up its working capital before I even think about trying to pull anything back out.
I could instead have chucked the same money down as a deposit on a BTL house, which is by comparison virtually effort and risk free.
I would argue that what I'm doing with the business is far more valuable to society - I'll be providing jobs for a number of employees, as well as useful services to clients. If I become a landlord, I'm just another cash sucking rentier.
Unfortunately, for tax purposes, we treat both sorts of activities the same. This is neither fair nor sensible.
Tories have average 3% lead over the past 10 polls since the first debate. But, one firm, EKOS, is responsible for most of that. 3 polls of 6%+ leads.
The other 7 polls are averaging a 1.5 lead. Which isn't greatly different to last time.
One thing which is not happening is the NDP aren't being squeezed. Stable at 19/20%.
Trudeau leading on Best PM. But having the greatest net negatives.
Confusing. But I'll back anything better than evens for either for most seats. Signs the Tories are becoming a little more efficient. Liberals less so. But Trudeau still wins comfortably on an equal vote share.
* The hike will be branded a health & social care levy
* It will be ‘legally ringfenced’ to prevent it being siphoned off by future govts
* Unlike normal NI it will also be paid by working pensioners
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1434995370086502401?s=19
So, if you're of working age, you're going to be paying more.
If you're of pensionable age but still working, you're going to be paying more.
If you are on UC, your benefits are about to be cut.
If you rely on a state pension, that's not going up as much as you may have hoped. (Justified, but the explanation has been a disgrace).
Anyone notice who is missing from this list?
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. But quite possibly excellent cynical politics.
NI doesn't depend upon your tax band, it depends upon your income from your employer. As a result unearned income is completely untaxed for NI because it isn't coming from an employer. It may attract Income Tax, but it doesn't attract National Insurance.
One very little known fact is that if someone has two completely unrelated jobs they can claim the tax-free allowance for NI with both employers.
Like NI and Fuel Duty....legally ringfenced means nothing, as if you are in power, you get to change the law.
If you wanted to cut NHS funding in the future then still give this 2% to the NHS but reduce the non-ringfenced element. This rise is entirely eliminated from the NHS budget then, but also still ringfenced.
A currency where transfer $20 from one person to another costs $2.50 in transaction fees, and where it can take three or four hours before you know it's gone through.
Roll on Lightning.
I probably should buy an NFT now with all the profits :-)
Do you mean you’re flogging graphics cards?
Solana in particular has gone through the roof. 3x in a month. Ethereum up 40%. Cardono 100%.
People are paying $200, $500, even a $1000 worth of Ethereum just to do a transaction at particularly crazy times. With that going on, just impossible that price wouldn't go up. Then, people got priced out of Ethereum NFTs, so went to the other currencies.
The problem is Ethereum wasn't designed to have millions of people trying to hammer some contract all at the same time to buy a silly avatar, as if they are bidding on an ebay auction.
There are a whole load of solutions to sit ontop of Ethereum being worked on, and these other currencies like Solana, that can just all of this much faster and more efficiently already (and hence transaction costs are much much lower).
I wouldn't bet my house on any of this stuff, but it seemed like an easy win to buy up these coins and sell them back when all the madness kicked off. I am not sure what ultimately stops a Google or Apple developing their own alternative to these approaches, they have much bigger resources and the top talent.
I mean, they appear to be the ultimate in vapourware, but what is the barrier to entry which is preventing people from generating more vapour at such a rate as to crash the prices to nothing - as it would seem to the casual observer that generating a mediocre gif or two then selling it for the price of a modest house is a game many many people would like to get into?
If on the other hand chains actually start working and being meaningful for actual trades and not simply as a Ponzi or tax dodge, then I suspect the tech companies could move pretty swiftly to sort it out.
Which would have the potential to make Bitcoin "investments" worth as much as Blockbuster Video shares.
There are public market places, equivalent to ebay, so the market decides what people are willing to pay for them.
And yes, the barrier to entry is ridiculously low, so every day there are 10s of new "collections", that often contain 10,000 pieces.
I think ultimately there will be more complicated contracts, where there are digital rights and royalties will be collected automatically if somebody wants to make use of that NFT say in an advert.
But there is where I can see a "proper" company designing the tech for it, not trying to ramp this into a system that was designed to move money around.
All the other "smart" cryptos, there are some things I can see perhaps might work, distributed finance, being able to give out micro loans worldwide etc.
But a lot of the projects are open source, so if Amazon wants to make their own, they can already see what works and what doesn't....and then they can deploy 1000s of engineers and limitless resources to code up a system to say do blockchain stock keeping and also sell that tech to all their partners, integrated into cloud via AWS.
There's no shortage of engineering talent working on scaling these systems, good engineers will make more money and have more fun outside google or apple. Making p2p consensus systems scale is just a hard engineering problem, that's why it's not getting solved overnight.