Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
If you don't test much then you don't report the cases.
If you report too many cases then you lose the tourists.
Fascinating to look at the Canadian election polling.
Among the rolling pollsters, EKOS has a steady 6-point Conservative lead but Mainstreet has seen some big Conservative leads trimmed back in recent days to a 2.4% lead yesterday. Nanos had a 2 point Liberal lead.
Abacus Data polls a bigger sample - 2,875 - and the current figures are Liberals and Conservatives tied on 32 and NDP on 21. Since last week, the only change has been a one point drop for the Conservatives so big changes in the rolling polls aren't being matched in more conventional polling.
In the provinces, NDP lead by six in British Columbia, the Conservatives have huge leads in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan but in Ontario the Liberals still lead by three and have a one point advantage over BQ in Quebec.
The line seems to be the Liberals will still end up as the largest party on these numbers but short of a majority with the NDP making gains on both Liberals and Conservatives.
Glad another finds it fascinating! By contrast, 338 is showing a 3%+ Tory lead and a plurality of 12 seats for the Conservatives.
It all comes down to whether you weight EKOS, with its consistently outsize Tory leads, and daily polls, as equally as all the others. One thing seems to be true. The Liberal wound has been cauterised. They are no longer bleeding votes, and possibly clawing them back. The NDP, usually squeezed, aren't being.
Three things Trudeau has always done well. Come on strong late in the campaign. He is formidable in the debates, two more to come. Run much better from behind as an underdog. And, crucially, if repeated, poll much better than expected from polling.
My current prediction is both parties to win around 140 seats. A tiny number of votes will decide which party comes out slightly ahead.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
I’m sure we are doing much more testing than other places.
Completely off topic my daughter just asked as I was putting her to bed if she could get a Rocky (Paw Patrol) toy for Christmas, so I said if she was good I'm sure she could be on the nice list and he'd bring it to her. She then replied that if she wasn't on the nice list, she could get it for her birthday instead.
Always good to have a Plan B!
(I thought I'd share this story as it was cute and made me smile - and there's been enough frayed tempers on this site today)
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
They have had a very long tail of hospitalised Covid patients, so it's not that surprising.
Idaho activates Crisis Standards of Care in northern region due to surge in COVID-19 patients: "It means we have exhausted our resources to the point that [we're] unable to provide the treatment and care we expect" https://t.co/Eppj76reWq
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
Weather-related? UK was socialising indoors, while mainland Europe was socialising outdoors a few weeks later?
Indoors, Europeans seem to be much keener on mask-wearing, still? Here in Switzerland everyone is still wearing a mask - inside.
But the difference in deaths is much less striking. The UK is now mid-table in its European death rate
Hungary has lost almost 0.5% of their population to Covid. That's like one-in-ten 2017 LibDem voters kicking the bucket.
Is that true? Jesus
I mean the Hungary stat. I presume any stat about lib dem voters is some kind of joke
The LibDem stat is proportionately correct. And yes, the Hungary number is also right.
Eastern Europe has been absolutely massacred by Covid: elderly populations and vaccine hesitancy are a horrible combination.
That’s like a pretty bad wartime death toll. Bloody hell
Every adult is acquainted with about 200 people aren’t they? Something like that. That means every Hungarian will know ‘someone’ who died
Well we're not TOO far behind. Roughly 1 in 500. And I know - or knew - one person, personally, who has died of covid, and four of five more at one remove. Yet it doesn't feel apocalyptic. Because every one of those people fall into the category of 'would have died this year anyway'. My next door neighbour, who had a rare variant of Parkinson's disease and who was given 18 months to live two years ago. My other neighbour's dad, who was declining rapidly with dementia. My colleague's mum, whom he had been visiting almost every day for four years as she tragically declined. All had had a positive covid test within 28 days. All tragic deaths. Yet none in any way avoidable, or even particularly attributable to covid. I know plenty of young, healthy people who have contracted covid too of course. Plenty of neither young nor healthy people too. All of whom have recovered, none of whom were hospitalised. If Hungary is similar, it won't be feeling apocalyptic there either.
Of course, we should remind ourselves once again at this juncture that what's ultimately at the root of all of this, underlying the narrative of generational inequity, is housing. Its cost and value are behind all of it. The harder it becomes to afford to buy a property and to pay off a mortgage, the more property values inflate, and the more advantageous it becomes to be mortgage-free, so the harder those who have these advantages will fight to maintain them.
There aren't enough homes - especially in the places where people most want to live - and so the value of the available stock runs away well ahead of inflation, and so do the advantages to holding a piece of it, which are enormous. For example, even a one-bedroom flat in my neck of the woods can seldom be had to rent for less than £750pm nowadays, and you'd part with something pretty close to than in repayments on a 25-year mortgage with an initial 10% deposit. Someone who's mortgage-free not only owns the valuable asset (and the associated security of tenure in the event of financial disaster,) but if they're still earning then that whole great slab of money goes straight into their pocket instead of someone else's. Travel, luxuries, profitable investments, an early retirement fund - all become possible.
Basically, if there were a large enough supply of property available that prices didn't continue to spiral out of control and the cost for renters and mortgage payers wasn't so crippling, then the phenomenon of old people and their desperate heirs clinging to property wealth would be so much less of a feature of our public life, the squeeze on incomes would be much less severe and, it would be easier to have sensible conversations about self-reliant citizens using more of the wealth sunk in their properties to fund their care in later life, rather than expecting hard-up youngsters to hose them down with what little cash they have.
But we don't live in that world, hence the mess in which we find ourselves.
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
It all comes down to whether you weight EKOS, with its consistently outsize Tory leads, and daily polls, as equally as all the others. One thing seems to be true. The Liberal wound has been cauterised. They are no longer bleeding votes, and possibly clawing them back. The NDP, usually squeezed, aren't being.
Three things Trudeau has always done well. Come on strong late in the campaign. He is formidable in the debates, two more to come. Run much better from behind as an underdog. And, crucially, if repeated, poll much better than expected from polling.
My current prediction is both parties to win around 140 seats. A tiny number of votes will decide which party comes out slightly ahead.
I tend to ignore the daily rolling polls in favour of the weekly larger sample polls.
Abacus has a small swing to the Liberals from 2019 with the NDP doing much better (up five points on 2019). I suspect the Liberals will fall back and Conservative advances will be limited with the NDP gaining 20 or more to be in the mid to high 40s.
I'd put the Liberals around 140 and the Conservatives in the low 130s with the NDP in the high 40s but that's my punt.
I've been pondering on the unfairness of today's stuff while out walking. Here's a brief personal take just on the NI bit (I won't tackle the whole package, which I think is deeply flawed):
My daughter (30) earns a bit less than the average wage - around £25,000 p.a. Her housing costs are £1,000 a month, excluding council tax; doesn't leave her much spending money, especially once bills are paid. My occupational pension is roughly the same amount; I have no other income. My housing costs are zero, excluding council tax; we've paid off the mortgage.
So my income is completely untouched. Hers goes down a bit. How on earth can this be right?
I've said on here before that I think too many people think the interests of the retired and the young are different or in conflict. They're not to many of us who have kids. The fact that I contribute nothing but my hard-up-daughter does is a f***ing disgrace.
It's an attack on working people to protect Tory voting pensioners. There's really nothing more to it, indeed the government has actually cut £1bn from the cost of care for wealthy retired people today and funded that with this new tax.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
If you don't test much then you don't report the cases.
If you report too many cases then you lose the tourists.
While that's true, test positivity rates have also dropped in Spain and France. (And France also does pretty much the same amount of testing as the UK.)
The country which is the real outlier as far as testing goes is Germany - they're doing 80% fewer tests on a per capita basis than France or the UK.
Fascinating to look at the Canadian election polling.
Among the rolling pollsters, EKOS has a steady 6-point Conservative lead but Mainstreet has seen some big Conservative leads trimmed back in recent days to a 2.4% lead yesterday. Nanos had a 2 point Liberal lead.
Abacus Data polls a bigger sample - 2,875 - and the current figures are Liberals and Conservatives tied on 32 and NDP on 21. Since last week, the only change has been a one point drop for the Conservatives so big changes in the rolling polls aren't being matched in more conventional polling.
In the provinces, NDP lead by six in British Columbia, the Conservatives have huge leads in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan but in Ontario the Liberals still lead by three and have a one point advantage over BQ in Quebec.
The line seems to be the Liberals will still end up as the largest party on these numbers but short of a majority with the NDP making gains on both Liberals and Conservatives.
Yes, it doesn't feel like the Conservatives will come out ahead to me. Even though I think O'Toole is an impressive PM candidate.
If that were the case you'd expect more solid Conservative leads in Ontario, and a slightly better performance in rural BC.
"Why Justin Trudeau’s snap election is backfiring Voters hungry for change are weary of the Canadian Prime Minister’s broken promises and corruption scandals. Luke Savage"
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I've been pondering on the unfairness of today's stuff while out walking. Here's a brief personal take just on the NI bit (I won't tackle the whole package, which I think is deeply flawed):
My daughter (30) earns a bit less than the average wage - around £25,000 p.a. Her housing costs are £1,000 a month, excluding council tax; doesn't leave her much spending money, especially once bills are paid. My occupational pension is roughly the same amount; I have no other income. My housing costs are zero, excluding council tax; we've paid off the mortgage.
So my income is completely untouched. Hers goes down a bit. How on earth can this be right?
I've said on here before that I think too many people think the interests of the retired and the young are different or in conflict. They're not to many of us who have kids. The fact that I contribute nothing but my hard-up-daughter does is a f***ing disgrace.
Here we see the essential logic of the policy. It rewards strong families. You can support your daughter. It empowers older people by giving them control over their children's lives, right in to adulthood. That is why it is a vote winner: enough people at or near retirement support it, and which it becomes in their interest to preserve. Indeed, the second generation can see that it is in their interest to preserve it as well, as they become the beneficiaries of their parents largesse, all facilitated by the policy.
You think it is a f**king disgrace. On a moral level, I would agree. But it is also a product of democracy.
Completely off topic my daughter just asked as I was putting her to bed if she could get a Rocky (Paw Patrol) toy for Christmas, so I said if she was good I'm sure she could be on the nice list and he'd bring it to her. She then replied that if she wasn't on the nice list, she could get it for her birthday instead.
Always good to have a Plan B!
(I thought I'd share this story as it was cute and made me smile - and there's been enough frayed tempers on this site today)
Nice little domestic insight.
Funny world, this place. I know the political views of regular posters in great detail. Yet know little or nothing of most people's real lives. I know Philip's views on the Green Belt, public transport, the West Lothian question and any nu.ber of other issues, yet had only a vague idea that he had a daughter a similar age to my youngest or what she wanted for Christmas. The exact opposite way round to my friends IRL.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
I’m sure we are doing much more testing than other places.
Fortunately, data exists on daily tests per 1,000 people.
Austria is way out in front with 30 per 1,000, but of the large European countries the UK is top of the class, at about 12 per 1,000, while France is 11. (Denmark is also at 12.)
Italy, Greece and Portugal are between 5 and 10. Switzerland and the US are on 3.
Germany by contrast, has just 1.4 tests per 1,000 per day, which is still better than Poland which has less than 1.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
Weather-related? UK was socialising indoors, while mainland Europe was socialising outdoors a few weeks later?
Indoors, Europeans seem to be much keener on mask-wearing, still? Here in Switzerland everyone is still wearing a mask - inside.
But the difference in deaths is much less striking. The UK is now mid-table in its European death rate
Hungary has lost almost 0.5% of their population to Covid. That's like one-in-ten 2017 LibDem voters kicking the bucket.
Is that true? Jesus
I mean the Hungary stat. I presume any stat about lib dem voters is some kind of joke
The LibDem stat is proportionately correct. And yes, the Hungary number is also right.
Eastern Europe has been absolutely massacred by Covid: elderly populations and vaccine hesitancy are a horrible combination.
That’s like a pretty bad wartime death toll. Bloody hell
Every adult is acquainted with about 200 people aren’t they? Something like that. That means every Hungarian will know ‘someone’ who died
Well we're not TOO far behind. Roughly 1 in 500. And I know - or knew - one person, personally, who has died of covid, and four of five more at one remove. Yet it doesn't feel apocalyptic. Because every one of those people fall into the category of 'would have died this year anyway'. My next door neighbour, who had a rare variant of Parkinson's disease and who was given 18 months to live two years ago. My other neighbour's dad, who was declining rapidly with dementia. My colleague's mum, whom he had been visiting almost every day for four years as she tragically declined. All had had a positive covid test within 28 days. All tragic deaths. Yet none in any way avoidable, or even particularly attributable to covid. I know plenty of young, healthy people who have contracted covid too of course. Plenty of neither young nor healthy people too. All of whom have recovered, none of whom were hospitalised. If Hungary is similar, it won't be feeling apocalyptic there either.
Fair point. But my experience is different. And you have to factor in the nearly dead. The ICU survivors. The long covid cases. The weird side effect dudes
I have two young-ish close-ish friends who got it bad. One was co-morbid and nearly died, but the other completely healthy but got very bad long covid and then suddenly cancer. Linked? Her doctor suspects so
I have an acquaintance - one of those 200 we all have - who was in ICU for four whole weeks and he really should be dead. Still shell shocked. May never be the same. Age 50. Previously fine
So in my circle it’s not apocalyptic but it’s scary and huge - in terms of the scale and eerie randomness
It wouldn’t take much more for it to tip into apocalyptic territory, especially if health care systems buckle
Wuhan, nyc, Madrid and Lombardy all looked quite frightening from the outside
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
If you don't test much then you don't report the cases.
If you report too many cases then you lose the tourists.
While that's true, test positivity rates have also dropped in Spain and France. (And France also does pretty much the same amount of testing as the UK.)
The country which is the real outlier as far as testing goes is Germany - they're doing 80% fewer tests on a per capita basis than France or the UK.
Germany seems to have been lucky in every wave so far. Perhaps there’s something that makes their infection chains shorter than in other countries.
Just had drinks with the manager of an insanely posh 5 star hotel here in Ascona. In insanely rich Ticino. In insanely wealthy Switzerland
He told me that in the early 20th century Ticino in particular was so impoverished it was notorious. In a nearby valley there is a rustic bar called the ‘grotto americano’ (grotto means a rural cafe/bistro). It was named thus because it is where the locals would gather for a last drink of rough wine before they dispersed to the ports, and emigrated to America. And a better life
What sane Swiss person would now escape Switzerland for a better life? Especially to the USA!
Switzerland was poor for a very long time. It had a rural economy, with little industry, that needed to export mercenaries to pay the bills.
The rest of Europe going to war (and destroying everything and running up huge debts) twice in a century helped turn things around.
Yes. It’s like the Singapore of Europe. Rising quietly in a few decades from dire poverty to great affluence
He’s a dude. The manager here. Managed famous hotels all over the world. Very eminent. Very suspicious of China. Thinks it came from the lab. Like any sane person
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
Jake Berry MP doesn't even live in the North of England.
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
There's an important 'but' - the change could also mean that care providers lose out on a huge amount of income - I'm told govt sounded out care providers about making this change before today's announcement and sector reacted with horror https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1435328629303619584
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
Jake Berry MP doesn't even live in the North of England.
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
Because he has a northern constituency. And he was born here.
I've been pondering on the unfairness of today's stuff while out walking. Here's a brief personal take just on the NI bit (I won't tackle the whole package, which I think is deeply flawed):
My daughter (30) earns a bit less than the average wage - around £25,000 p.a. Her housing costs are £1,000 a month, excluding council tax; doesn't leave her much spending money, especially once bills are paid. My occupational pension is roughly the same amount; I have no other income. My housing costs are zero, excluding council tax; we've paid off the mortgage.
So my income is completely untouched. Hers goes down a bit. How on earth can this be right?
I've said on here before that I think too many people think the interests of the retired and the young are different or in conflict. They're not to many of us who have kids. The fact that I contribute nothing but my hard-up-daughter does is a f***ing disgrace.
Great post. I was going to say similar but my example was going to be me and the Waitrose checkout staff who enable my shopping. They have far less money than the likes of me, yet they are asked to cough up and we are not. It's very shabby.
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
Jake Berry MP doesn't even live in the North of England.
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
He was born in Liverpool and read Law at the University of Sheffield.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
If you don't test much then you don't report the cases.
If you report too many cases then you lose the tourists.
While that's true, test positivity rates have also dropped in Spain and France. (And France also does pretty much the same amount of testing as the UK.)
The country which is the real outlier as far as testing goes is Germany - they're doing 80% fewer tests on a per capita basis than France or the UK.
Do you have the number of French tests per day ?
England is now doing over a million per day.
But there are indeed strange ebbs and flows per country though I don't see how everyone doesn't come into contact with Delta sooner or later.
I've been pondering on the unfairness of today's stuff while out walking. Here's a brief personal take just on the NI bit (I won't tackle the whole package, which I think is deeply flawed):
My daughter (30) earns a bit less than the average wage - around £25,000 p.a. Her housing costs are £1,000 a month, excluding council tax; doesn't leave her much spending money, especially once bills are paid. My occupational pension is roughly the same amount; I have no other income. My housing costs are zero, excluding council tax; we've paid off the mortgage.
So my income is completely untouched. Hers goes down a bit. How on earth can this be right?
I've said on here before that I think too many people think the interests of the retired and the young are different or in conflict. They're not to many of us who have kids. The fact that I contribute nothing but my hard-up-daughter does is a f***ing disgrace.
What would you have done instead? A wealth tax perhaps. It was being suggested earlier by some on here.
Seems a wasted effort when she's worked happily with them for years. Chancellor Angela Merkel has targeted the centre-left favourite in the race to succeed her, in what is likely to be her final appearance before MPs.
In a bid to bolster her own party's candidate ahead of Germany's 26 September elections, the outgoing leader was bitterly critical of Olaf Scholz, whose SPD is leading the polls.
Mrs Merkel warned that a vote for his party could let in the far left.
Scholz is, if he's got any sense, already working out how to get the FDP and Greens on board. I suspect he'll offer the FDP the "hard" Ministries such as Defence and Finance and leave the Greens with the "soft" Ministries (Health, Environment).
As for the Union, the worst result in their history was 31% in 1949 followed by 33% in 2017. They are now polling around 20% - that's akin to the 1997 result for the UK Conservatives in terms of the magnitude of the disaster - if anything, it's actually worse.
The notion after a defeat of this scale the Union will want to stay in Government is put forward only by those who don't understand how political parties work. The Union will go into opposition and seek to re-group under Soeder (presumably) for 2025.
The GMS poll in Bavaria is fascinating:
Changes on 2017 Federal election:
CSU: 29% (-10) Greens 18% (+8) Social Democrats: 15% Free Democrats: 13% (+3) Alternative for Germany: 10% (-2.5) Free Voters: 6% (+3) Linke: 3% (-3)
That's a 9% swing from CSU to the Greens and a 5% swing from the CSU to SPD.
Last time, the CSU won all the constituencies in Bavaria but on these figures they'd lose four, two to the Greens and two to the SPD. The idea of the CSU losing a seat in Bavaria is up there with the UK Conservatives losing a seat in rural Lincolnshire.
It also shows the SPD may not be making ground in Bavaria so they are clearing doing very well in more industrial areas and in the former GDR.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
If you don't test much then you don't report the cases.
If you report too many cases then you lose the tourists.
While that's true, test positivity rates have also dropped in Spain and France. (And France also does pretty much the same amount of testing as the UK.)
The country which is the real outlier as far as testing goes is Germany - they're doing 80% fewer tests on a per capita basis than France or the UK.
Germany seems to have been lucky in every wave so far. Perhaps there’s something that makes their infection chains shorter than in other countries.
To me the baffling difference is between Belgium and Netherlands.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
France, Portugal and Spain have piled up the hospitalisations and deaths as has Italy to a lesser extent and the Balkans and Turkey are getting hammered.
What hasn't been much affected yet are the countries in the northern half of Europe.
What happens to them as the weather gets colder we will see.
I also don’t believe some of the European stats. Spain had 140 deaths today, yet just 5,000 cases? Really?
That’s a CFR of ~3%. Like early Wuhan. Yet with mass vaccination? Bollocks
I’m sure we are doing much more testing than other places.
Fortunately, data exists on daily tests per 1,000 people.
Austria is way out in front with 30 per 1,000, but of the large European countries the UK is top of the class, at about 12 per 1,000, while France is 11. (Denmark is also at 12.)
Italy, Greece and Portugal are between 5 and 10. Switzerland and the US are on 3.
Germany by contrast, has just 1.4 tests per 1,000 per day, which is still better than Poland which has less than 1.
I think we are doing more than that, as lots of lateral flow tests are not logged if negative. I mean why bother?
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
Jake Berry MP doesn't even live in the North of England.
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
Because he has a northern constituency. And he was born here.
He does not live in the constituency.
However, even if you think that is acceptable, Berry is deceitful.
He attempted to suppress information about his property empire on Ynys Mon, which only came to light when he bought COVID to the island by **breaking lockdown regulations**
He does not have a house in Rossendale & Darwen, but pretends he does,
We have been talking about second home owners. Jake Berry owns at least 5 properties, none of which are in R&D. 4 are in Ynys Mon.
He is not some hard done by working class Northerner.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
This comes back to housing as well. There is not enough of it, and not enough will be built either because of Nimbyism (existing owners know that constricting supply pumps up prices.)
The consequence of this is that populations will continue to age, because the young can't afford to have babies and mass immigration is unpopular generally, but especially with olds.
The situation will eventually resolve itself when the population goes into outright decline, the glut of olds die off faster than babies are born, and enough housing is freed up that prices at least stabilise or ideally go into reverse. Once society is less burdened by both old people and housing costs, the remaining people will hopefully be better off and taxes will also come down.
Of course, to get from A to B will take many decades.
The death of Thatcherism needs to be recorded today.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Fascinating to look at the Canadian election polling.
Among the rolling pollsters, EKOS has a steady 6-point Conservative lead but Mainstreet has seen some big Conservative leads trimmed back in recent days to a 2.4% lead yesterday. Nanos had a 2 point Liberal lead.
Abacus Data polls a bigger sample - 2,875 - and the current figures are Liberals and Conservatives tied on 32 and NDP on 21. Since last week, the only change has been a one point drop for the Conservatives so big changes in the rolling polls aren't being matched in more conventional polling.
In the provinces, NDP lead by six in British Columbia, the Conservatives have huge leads in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan but in Ontario the Liberals still lead by three and have a one point advantage over BQ in Quebec.
The line seems to be the Liberals will still end up as the largest party on these numbers but short of a majority with the NDP making gains on both Liberals and Conservatives.
Yes, it doesn't feel like the Conservatives will come out ahead to me. Even though I think O'Toole is an impressive PM candidate.
If that were the case you'd expect more solid Conservative leads in Ontario, and a slightly better performance in rural BC.
Of the 338 ridings, 121 are in Ontario, 78 in Quebec and 42 in British Columbia. That's 241 with just 97 in the rest of Canada.
The huge Conservative leads in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba mean a maximum of 62 seats so the battleground is clear.
The death of Thatcherism needs to be recorded today.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
Jake Berry MP doesn't even live in the North of England.
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
Because he has a northern constituency. And he was born here.
He does not live in the constituency.
However, even if you think that is acceptable, Berry is deceitful.
He attempted to suppress information about his property empire on Ynys Mon, which only came to light when he bought COVID to the island by **breaking lockdown regulations**
He does not have a house in Rossendale & Darwen, but pretends he does,
We have been talking about second home owners. Jake Berry owns at least 5 properties, none of which are in R&D. 4 are in Ynys Mon.
He is not some hard done by working class Northerner.
He owns a house in Rossendale, I've checked, otherwise you should go to the police and complain about his SOPN.
Seems a wasted effort when she's worked happily with them for years. Chancellor Angela Merkel has targeted the centre-left favourite in the race to succeed her, in what is likely to be her final appearance before MPs.
In a bid to bolster her own party's candidate ahead of Germany's 26 September elections, the outgoing leader was bitterly critical of Olaf Scholz, whose SPD is leading the polls.
Mrs Merkel warned that a vote for his party could let in the far left.
Scholz is, if he's got any sense, already working out how to get the FDP and Greens on board. I suspect he'll offer the FDP the "hard" Ministries such as Defence and Finance and leave the Greens with the "soft" Ministries (Health, Environment).
As for the Union, the worst result in their history was 31% in 1949 followed by 33% in 2017. They are now polling around 20% - that's akin to the 1997 result for the UK Conservatives in terms of the magnitude of the disaster - if anything, it's actually worse.
The notion after a defeat of this scale the Union will want to stay in Government is put forward only by those who don't understand how political parties work. The Union will go into opposition and seek to re-group under Soeder (presumably) for 2025.
The GMS poll in Bavaria is fascinating:
Changes on 2017 Federal election:
CSU: 29% (-10) Greens 18% (+8) Social Democrats: 15% Free Democrats: 13% (+3) Alternative for Germany: 10% (-2.5) Free Voters: 6% (+3) Linke: 3% (-3)
That's a 9% swing from CSU to the Greens and a 5% swing from the CSU to SPD.
Last time, the CSU won all the constituencies in Bavaria but on these figures they'd lose four, two to the Greens and two to the SPD. The idea of the CSU losing a seat in Bavaria is up there with the UK Conservatives losing a seat in rural Lincolnshire.
It also shows the SPD may not be making ground in Bavaria so they are clearing doing very well in more industrial areas and in the former GDR.
The Bavarian polling is indeed interesting because the CSU losses are splintering all over the place to the Greens/FDP/Freie Wähler and is not going as much directly to the SPD unlike in the rest of Germany who are on 15% like they were in 2017 although they are still likely to win around 70% of the FPTP constituencies with the seat losses mainly being concentrated around the metropolitan areas like Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg etc.
The death of Thatcherism needs to be recorded today.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
The issue of provision of social care for adults (not just the elderly) has been avoided for too long.
Yet where is the radical thinking, the idea of personal provision via some form of insurance scheme for example?
The choice is either we get individuals to take personal responsibility for their later financial life (including care if needed), perhaps supporting families and carers who look after older relatives or we simply provide overarching social care provision free of charge funded from general taxation.
I'll be honest - I think it a reasonable aspiration for a civilised society to treat its elderly citizens with respect and dignity. That means more than discounted travel and tv licences - it's a cultural change required so older people aren't excluded from "mainstream" life.
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
Jake Berry MP doesn't even live in the North of England.
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
He was born in Liverpool and read Law at the University of Sheffield.
Last time I checked he lived in Rossendale.
Last time, you checked you told us George Osborne had one job.
However, Jake Berry does not own any property in R&D. The Welsh press went into the matter in some detail after the surprising discovery of his empire on Ynys Mon.
He claims for a property in R&D called Clough Cottage (actually owned by another local Tory -- good way for one Tory to funnel money to another )
Clough Cottage is tiny -- but the great Northern Expert TSE is saying he lives there with his wife, their children and the nanny.
I think an enterprising journalist (or even the sleepy Labour party) could usefully do a little more digging into the expense claims of the member for R&D.
Yeah, yeah, ... and George Osborne has the one job, right!
I've been pondering on the unfairness of today's stuff while out walking. Here's a brief personal take just on the NI bit (I won't tackle the whole package, which I think is deeply flawed):
My daughter (30) earns a bit less than the average wage - around £25,000 p.a. Her housing costs are £1,000 a month, excluding council tax; doesn't leave her much spending money, especially once bills are paid. My occupational pension is roughly the same amount; I have no other income. My housing costs are zero, excluding council tax; we've paid off the mortgage.
So my income is completely untouched. Hers goes down a bit. How on earth can this be right?
I've said on here before that I think too many people think the interests of the retired and the young are different or in conflict. They're not to many of us who have kids. The fact that I contribute nothing but my hard-up-daughter does is a f***ing disgrace.
What would you have done instead? A wealth tax perhaps. It was being suggested earlier by some on here.
I don't have a problem with people drawing down on their assets for social care costs, with a modest wealth tax on top to spread the risk and the gap covered by social insurance (private or state).
We can't keep squeezing working people's incomes. It's so much harder to get on now in your 20s compared to the 1990s.
Chise @sailorrooscout R in Denmark has now fallen to 0.7 despite the start of a new school season last month indicating a declining epidemic. Denmark has vaccinated OVER 80% of its population and will drop all remaining COVID restrictions as of September 10th.
One of the very, very curious things is how much less badly hit Europe has been than the UK by Delta.
We (and I include myself in this) assumed that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., would have a very similar fourth wave to the UK. Simply: they were six weeks behind us, but were going to see the same hit.
But that hasn't really happened. While German cases continue to rise, French and Spanish cases have come down sharply from relatively low peaks, while Italy doesn't seem to have had a third wave at all.
Weather-related? UK was socialising indoors, while mainland Europe was socialising outdoors a few weeks later?
Indoors, Europeans seem to be much keener on mask-wearing, still? Here in Switzerland everyone is still wearing a mask - inside.
But the difference in deaths is much less striking. The UK is now mid-table in its European death rate
Hungary has lost almost 0.5% of their population to Covid. That's like one-in-ten 2017 LibDem voters kicking the bucket.
Is that true? Jesus
I mean the Hungary stat. I presume any stat about lib dem voters is some kind of joke
The LibDem stat is proportionately correct. And yes, the Hungary number is also right.
Eastern Europe has been absolutely massacred by Covid: elderly populations and vaccine hesitancy are a horrible combination.
That’s like a pretty bad wartime death toll. Bloody hell
Every adult is acquainted with about 200 people aren’t they? Something like that. That means every Hungarian will know ‘someone’ who died
Well we're not TOO far behind. Roughly 1 in 500. And I know - or knew - one person, personally, who has died of covid, and four of five more at one remove. Yet it doesn't feel apocalyptic. Because every one of those people fall into the category of 'would have died this year anyway'. My next door neighbour, who had a rare variant of Parkinson's disease and who was given 18 months to live two years ago. My other neighbour's dad, who was declining rapidly with dementia. My colleague's mum, whom he had been visiting almost every day for four years as she tragically declined. All had had a positive covid test within 28 days. All tragic deaths. Yet none in any way avoidable, or even particularly attributable to covid. I know plenty of young, healthy people who have contracted covid too of course. Plenty of neither young nor healthy people too. All of whom have recovered, none of whom were hospitalised. If Hungary is similar, it won't be feeling apocalyptic there either.
Fair point. But my experience is different. And you have to factor in the nearly dead. The ICU survivors. The long covid cases. The weird side effect dudes
I have two young-ish close-ish friends who got it bad. One was co-morbid and nearly died, but the other completely healthy but got very bad long covid and then suddenly cancer. Linked? Her doctor suspects so
I have an acquaintance - one of those 200 we all have - who was in ICU for four whole weeks and he really should be dead. Still shell shocked. May never be the same. Age 50. Previously fine
So in my circle it’s not apocalyptic but it’s scary and huge - in terms of the scale and eerie randomness
It wouldn’t take much more for it to tip into apocalyptic territory, especially if health care systems buckle
Wuhan, nyc, Madrid and Lombardy all looked quite frightening from the outside
Fair point, and I don't mean to be insensitive. Clearly your circle has been harder hit than mine. Wuhan, Madrid and Lombardy all looked scary from the outside. And then it arrived here. And it really wasn't as bad as it had looked. Which made you suspect that there had been some sensationalist editing going on, or at least picking the extreme rather than the representative stories. Which is after all what broadcast news does.
The death of Thatcherism needs to be recorded today.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
I've been pondering on the unfairness of today's stuff while out walking. Here's a brief personal take just on the NI bit (I won't tackle the whole package, which I think is deeply flawed):
My daughter (30) earns a bit less than the average wage - around £25,000 p.a. Her housing costs are £1,000 a month, excluding council tax; doesn't leave her much spending money, especially once bills are paid. My occupational pension is roughly the same amount; I have no other income. My housing costs are zero, excluding council tax; we've paid off the mortgage.
So my income is completely untouched. Hers goes down a bit. How on earth can this be right?
I've said on here before that I think too many people think the interests of the retired and the young are different or in conflict. They're not to many of us who have kids. The fact that I contribute nothing but my hard-up-daughter does is a f***ing disgrace.
What would you have done instead? A wealth tax perhaps. It was being suggested earlier by some on here.
The regional difference is 0.2%. On average earnings of £25,000, that is a difference of £1 a week...
Dividing changes into x per week is so misleading.
A little here, a little there, every single week of your career certainly adds up. For people who are living paycheck to paycheck then a pound added to or subtracted from their disposable income every week of their life adds up.
£1 per week for everyone in the country, every week of the year, is £3.4 billion.
I can think of a few better things to spend £3 billion on than redistributing to featherbed some people's inheritance.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
The issue of provision of social care for adults (not just the elderly) has been avoided for too long.
Yet where is the radical thinking, the idea of personal provision via some form of insurance scheme for example?
The choice is either we get individuals to take personal responsibility for their later financial life (including care if needed), perhaps supporting families and carers who look after older relatives or we simply provide overarching social care provision free of charge funded from general taxation.
I'll be honest - I think it a reasonable aspiration for a civilised society to treat its elderly citizens with respect and dignity. That means more than discounted travel and tv licences - it's a cultural change required so older people aren't excluded from "mainstream" life.
The death of Thatcherism needs to be recorded today.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
The death of Thatcherism needs to be recorded today.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
About 15% of people to pay more than half of the new tax
Let me guess: Mr Eagles is one of them, and the New Statesman’s bar chart posted earlier was disengenuous bollocks?
Jake Berry has nailed it, working class Northerners like me are going to pay more taxes to help rich southerners give their houses to their kids inheritance tax free.
Jake Berry MP doesn't even live in the North of England.
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
Because he has a northern constituency. And he was born here.
He does not live in the constituency.
However, even if you think that is acceptable, Berry is deceitful.
He attempted to suppress information about his property empire on Ynys Mon, which only came to light when he bought COVID to the island by **breaking lockdown regulations**
He does not have a house in Rossendale & Darwen, but pretends he does,
We have been talking about second home owners. Jake Berry owns at least 5 properties, none of which are in R&D. 4 are in Ynys Mon.
He is not some hard done by working class Northerner.
He owns a house in Rossendale, I've checked, otherwise you should go to the police and complain about his SOPN.
I've been pondering on the unfairness of today's stuff while out walking. Here's a brief personal take just on the NI bit (I won't tackle the whole package, which I think is deeply flawed):
My daughter (30) earns a bit less than the average wage - around £25,000 p.a. Her housing costs are £1,000 a month, excluding council tax; doesn't leave her much spending money, especially once bills are paid. My occupational pension is roughly the same amount; I have no other income. My housing costs are zero, excluding council tax; we've paid off the mortgage.
So my income is completely untouched. Hers goes down a bit. How on earth can this be right?
I've said on here before that I think too many people think the interests of the retired and the young are different or in conflict. They're not to many of us who have kids. The fact that I contribute nothing but my hard-up-daughter does is a f***ing disgrace.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
Seems a wasted effort when she's worked happily with them for years. Chancellor Angela Merkel has targeted the centre-left favourite in the race to succeed her, in what is likely to be her final appearance before MPs.
In a bid to bolster her own party's candidate ahead of Germany's 26 September elections, the outgoing leader was bitterly critical of Olaf Scholz, whose SPD is leading the polls.
Mrs Merkel warned that a vote for his party could let in the far left.
Scholz is, if he's got any sense, already working out how to get the FDP and Greens on board. I suspect he'll offer the FDP the "hard" Ministries such as Defence and Finance and leave the Greens with the "soft" Ministries (Health, Environment).
As for the Union, the worst result in their history was 31% in 1949 followed by 33% in 2017. They are now polling around 20% - that's akin to the 1997 result for the UK Conservatives in terms of the magnitude of the disaster - if anything, it's actually worse.
The notion after a defeat of this scale the Union will want to stay in Government is put forward only by those who don't understand how political parties work. The Union will go into opposition and seek to re-group under Soeder (presumably) for 2025.
The GMS poll in Bavaria is fascinating:
Changes on 2017 Federal election:
CSU: 29% (-10) Greens 18% (+8) Social Democrats: 15% Free Democrats: 13% (+3) Alternative for Germany: 10% (-2.5) Free Voters: 6% (+3) Linke: 3% (-3)
That's a 9% swing from CSU to the Greens and a 5% swing from the CSU to SPD.
Last time, the CSU won all the constituencies in Bavaria but on these figures they'd lose four, two to the Greens and two to the SPD. The idea of the CSU losing a seat in Bavaria is up there with the UK Conservatives losing a seat in rural Lincolnshire.
It also shows the SPD may not be making ground in Bavaria so they are clearing doing very well in more industrial areas and in the former GDR.
Most CSU losses will be in urban areas of Bavaria like Munich, population 1.4 million ie bigger than Birmingham let alone Lincoln.
Rural Bavaria will still be solid CSU and the CSU will still win Bavaria overall.
However it is not quite like 1997, for starters New Labour were not in government with the Tories then as the SPD are now in government with the CDU/CSU
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
The death of Thatcherism needs to be recorded today.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
I'm reminded of the reasons why David Herdson and myself quit the party in 2019, we realised Boris Johnson would do profoundly unConservative things.
The Tory Party has always been the party of inheritance, sometimes the Liberals have been more classically liberal than the Tories, certainly pre Thatcher
I take back my criticisms of these proposals and Boris Johnson.
The NS have started with the shape of the graph they wanted, then gone well out of their way to find second-order data that they can make fit.
Agreed. I'm all up for attacking the policy on principles but that's just absurd.
While looking into the data behind the plot I noticed that there was a lower NI rate for earnings above £967 of 2%. Surely raising that threshold or rate would have been another good way to raise revenue.
The whole parallel system of NI is ridiculous. One of the LD policies I support is unifying the two.
No, NI should be for unemployment insurance, state pensions and health treatment as established for.
You need NI credits for JSA and state pension and now it goes to the NHS and social care too, ideal
As so often, you make my case for me.
Because NI is (sort of) used to pay for those things, and because we don't want people dropping dead on the streets, we end up with ever more complicated systems of benefits for those who don't get NI tested benefits.
No reason we cannot have a more contributory welfare system like most western nations
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
It's the inevitable fallout of the new gerontocracy. Well-to-do olds and their expectant heirs constitute a large and growing fraction of the electorate - once again, I refer to research from 2019 (https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/) indicating that, factoring in propensity to vote on top of pure demographics, about a third of the entire electorate is over 65 and fully half is over 55. There are no prizes for guessing from which age groups the Conservative Party draws the bulk of its support. Moreover, especially following Brexit and the consequent decline in net international immigration, the electorate continues to age.
We are a democracy, and well-to-do, mortgage-free geriatrics and their ageing heirs (typically mortgaged property owners looking forward to fat legacies that will pay their way to early retirement and more besides) are a large, perhaps even dominant, constituency within the electorate. They are numerous, they vote enthusiastically, so they typically get what they want. It is as simple as that.
I heard today from someone who lives in France that you cant really go anywhere without a certificate of being double jabbed. Hence the huge increase in French vaccinations.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Most CSU losses will be in urban areas of Bavaria like Munich, population 1.4 million ie bigger than Birmingham let alone Lincoln.
Rural Bavaria will still be solid CSU and the CSU will still win Bavaria overall.
However it is not quite like 1997, for starters New Labour were not in government with the Tories then as the SPD are now in government with the CDU/CSU
Like most analogies it doesn't stand up to close inspection.
The CSU will indeed be fine in the rural seats but could well lose seats in Munich and Nuremburg as you say in the more industrial areas. I suspect the Greens will finish second in a lot of seats as well.
After all, the Conservatives won all 11 seats in Surrey in 1997 but still lost the election in a landslide.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
It's the inevitable fallout of the new gerontocracy. Well-to-do olds and their expectant heirs constitute a large and growing fraction of the electorate - once again, I refer to research from 2019 (https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/) indicating that, factoring in propensity to vote on top of pure demographics, about a third of the entire electorate is over 65 and fully half is over 55. There are no prizes for guessing from which age groups the Conservative Party draws the bulk of its support. Moreover, especially following Brexit and the consequent decline in net international immigration, the electorate continues to age.
We are a democracy, and well-to-do, mortgage-free geriatrics and their ageing heirs (typically mortgaged property owners looking forward to fat legacies that will pay their way to early retirement and more besides) are a large, perhaps even dominant, constituency within the electorate. They are numerous, they vote enthusiastically, so they typically get what they want. It is as simple as that.
You'd think in a decent world the well to do old people would stop to think about the world they're creating for their children, and grandchildren and potentially great grandchildren.
Too much to hope for it seems. "Give us everything and when we die you may be able to inherit some of it after we're gone" seems to be the order of the day.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
The first and the third are excellent ideas, congratulations.
I heard today from someone who lives in France that you cant really go anywhere without a certificate of being double jabbed. Hence the huge increase in French vaccinations.
Good. Anyone over here without a certificate should be gunned down in the street like a rabid dog. If that infringes their liberty, tough; does another lockdown brought about by their stupidity infringes mine.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
It's the inevitable fallout of the new gerontocracy. Well-to-do olds and their expectant heirs constitute a large and growing fraction of the electorate - once again, I refer to research from 2019 (https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/) indicating that, factoring in propensity to vote on top of pure demographics, about a third of the entire electorate is over 65 and fully half is over 55. There are no prizes for guessing from which age groups the Conservative Party draws the bulk of its support. Moreover, especially following Brexit and the consequent decline in net international immigration, the electorate continues to age.
We are a democracy, and well-to-do, mortgage-free geriatrics and their ageing heirs (typically mortgaged property owners looking forward to fat legacies that will pay their way to early retirement and more besides) are a large, perhaps even dominant, constituency within the electorate. They are numerous, they vote enthusiastically, so they typically get what they want. It is as simple as that.
You'd think in a decent world the well to do old people would stop to think about the world they're creating for their children, and grandchildren and potentially great grandchildren.
Too much to hope for it seems. "Give us everything and when we die you may be able to inherit some of it after we're gone" seems to be the order of the day.
Plenty of 30 year olds in the South also get parental assistance with a deposit too, their inheritance is not all left until their 50s or 60s
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
It wouldn't require any such thing. There's no such thing as "affordable housing" its a myth.
If the supply of housing grows faster than the demand for it then the price/earnings ratios will come down. If the supply grows slower than the demand, then they go up.
It really isn't rocket science or complicated beyond that. You could build nothing but luxury houses in the South and the price of houses in the South would come down if you built enough of them - the people living in OK houses would move into the new luxury ones, leaving the older OK ones for someone else.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
The issue of provision of social care for adults (not just the elderly) has been avoided for too long.
Yet where is the radical thinking, the idea of personal provision via some form of insurance scheme for example?
The choice is either we get individuals to take personal responsibility for their later financial life (including care if needed), perhaps supporting families and carers who look after older relatives or we simply provide overarching social care provision free of charge funded from general taxation.
I'll be honest - I think it a reasonable aspiration for a civilised society to treat its elderly citizens with respect and dignity. That means more than discounted travel and tv licences - it's a cultural change required so older people aren't excluded from "mainstream" life.
I'm with you. It should be an insurable risk.
As regards social costs, at least, lots of people will now be able to insure up to £86k.
The state will cover the long tail of a small number of people who have to pay more than that.
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
Those all seem like reasonable ideas. Better than relying on handouts from parents or grandparents something not everyone can do.
At the moment you can only really afford to buy on your own if you live north of Watford.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
There's probably some reason that governments have avoided abolishing NI and rolling it into income tax, I just don't know enough about it to speculate what that might be. Any thoughts?
Mostly the over-65s exemption, and that it is an effective disguise for the actual income tax rate on employees under £50k salary.
Minor issues are the different rates on the self-employed, the relationship of number of years’ contribution to pension entitlement and carve-outs for non-employment income.
That’s just employee NI. Employer NI is really great, because most people aren’t employers and don’t see it. Government can also announce a 1.25% rise that’s actually a 2.5% rise without most people noticing.
Then of course there’s the whole IR35 mess, which only exists because of NI and could be scrapped if NI was scrapped.
There’s also that a number of people view it as a ‘good tax’ simply because of the label (hence the new ‘Health & Social Care Levy’ tag).
The same trick worked for the frozen not frozen council tax with the "social care precept".
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
I always felt like my party was on the side of people worked hard and got on with life. People who wanted to supply for themselves and not rely on others.
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
Ridiculous attitude from a well off Northerner.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
You don't know my financial status, I've never shared that. But if the house prices are too high in the South there's solutions available for that. Perhaps start by constructing more homes to ensure prices come down as people can buy somewhere to live. That could be a start.
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
It would only make a limited impact as long as London remains a global city with the consequent impact on the commuter belt.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
It wouldn't require any such thing. There's no such thing as "affordable housing" its a myth.
If the supply of housing grows faster than the demand for it then the price/earnings ratios will come down. If the supply grows slower than the demand, then they go up.
It really isn't rocket science or complicated beyond that. You could build nothing but luxury houses in the South and the price of houses in the South would come down if you built enough of them - the people living in OK houses would move into the new luxury ones, leaving the older OK ones for someone else.
It would be millionaires buying the luxury housing as second or third homes and letting the rest out.
Comments
First it was nandos, then McDonalds, then IKEA.
Now it's sewage treatment chemicals - govt offers potential waiver if companies can't get anti-algae ferric sulphates https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/07/government-ease-sewage-discharge-rules-amid-chemical-shortage
And I know - or knew - one person, personally, who has died of covid, and four of five more at one remove.
Yet it doesn't feel apocalyptic. Because every one of those people fall into the category of 'would have died this year anyway'. My next door neighbour, who had a rare variant of Parkinson's disease and who was given 18 months to live two years ago. My other neighbour's dad, who was declining rapidly with dementia. My colleague's mum, whom he had been visiting almost every day for four years as she tragically declined. All had had a positive covid test within 28 days. All tragic deaths. Yet none in any way avoidable, or even particularly attributable to covid.
I know plenty of young, healthy people who have contracted covid too of course. Plenty of neither young nor healthy people too. All of whom have recovered, none of whom were hospitalised.
If Hungary is similar, it won't be feeling apocalyptic there either.
There aren't enough homes - especially in the places where people most want to live - and so the value of the available stock runs away well ahead of inflation, and so do the advantages to holding a piece of it, which are enormous. For example, even a one-bedroom flat in my neck of the woods can seldom be had to rent for less than £750pm nowadays, and you'd part with something pretty close to than in repayments on a 25-year mortgage with an initial 10% deposit. Someone who's mortgage-free not only owns the valuable asset (and the associated security of tenure in the event of financial disaster,) but if they're still earning then that whole great slab of money goes straight into their pocket instead of someone else's. Travel, luxuries, profitable investments, an early retirement fund - all become possible.
Basically, if there were a large enough supply of property available that prices didn't continue to spiral out of control and the cost for renters and mortgage payers wasn't so crippling, then the phenomenon of old people and their desperate heirs clinging to property wealth would be so much less of a feature of our public life, the squeeze on incomes would be much less severe and, it would be easier to have sensible conversations about self-reliant citizens using more of the wealth sunk in their properties to fund their care in later life, rather than expecting hard-up youngsters to hose them down with what little cash they have.
But we don't live in that world, hence the mess in which we find ourselves.
Abacus has a small swing to the Liberals from 2019 with the NDP doing much better (up five points on 2019). I suspect the Liberals will fall back and Conservative advances will be limited with the NDP gaining 20 or more to be in the mid to high 40s.
I'd put the Liberals around 140 and the Conservatives in the low 130s with the NDP in the high 40s but that's my punt.
https://t.co/qIOlRKGuKY https://t.co/6kVhh04uuh
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1435220339630485506?s=19
The country which is the real outlier as far as testing goes is Germany - they're doing 80% fewer tests on a per capita basis than France or the UK.
If that were the case you'd expect more solid Conservative leads in Ontario, and a slightly better performance in rural BC.
Voters hungry for change are weary of the Canadian Prime Minister’s broken promises and corruption scandals.
Luke Savage"
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2021/09/why-justin-trudeau-s-snap-election-backfiring
"Is Justin Trudeau going the way of Theresa May?
The Canadian PM's cynical election call looks like it is backfiring
Marshall Auerback"
https://unherd.com/thepost/is-justin-trudeau-going-the-way-of-theresa-may/
Such bullshit around. Ageing population with higher expectations = higher and higher taxes every few years, unless some fantastic new paradigm is broken.
That one? There is a very striking map in it ...
You think it is a f**king disgrace. On a moral level, I would agree. But it is also a product of democracy.
After leaving the EU today is the day we've become more European with both parties espousing high tax and spend policies.
What is a British fiscal conservative supposed to do?
Funny world, this place. I know the political views of regular posters in great detail. Yet know little or nothing of most people's real lives. I know Philip's views on the Green Belt, public transport, the West Lothian question and any nu.ber of other issues, yet had only a vague idea that he had a daughter a similar age to my youngest or what she wanted for Christmas.
The exact opposite way round to my friends IRL.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
Austria is way out in front with 30 per 1,000, but of the large European countries the UK is top of the class, at about 12 per 1,000, while France is 11. (Denmark is also at 12.)
Italy, Greece and Portugal are between 5 and 10. Switzerland and the US are on 3.
Germany by contrast, has just 1.4 tests per 1,000 per day, which is still better than Poland which has less than 1.
I have two young-ish close-ish friends who got it bad. One was co-morbid and nearly died, but the other completely healthy but got very bad long covid and then suddenly cancer. Linked? Her doctor suspects so
I have an acquaintance - one of those 200 we all have - who was in ICU for four whole weeks and he really should be dead. Still shell shocked. May never be the same. Age 50. Previously fine
So in my circle it’s not apocalyptic but it’s scary and huge - in terms of the scale and eerie randomness
It wouldn’t take much more for it to tip into apocalyptic territory, especially if health care systems buckle
Wuhan, nyc, Madrid and Lombardy all looked quite frightening from the outside
He lives on Ynys Mon, where he has a property empire. And of course he has big house in the South of England.
So, why is he leading the Northern Research Group ? Why is he even in it ?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1435328629303619584
Last time I checked he lived in Rossendale.
England is now doing over a million per day.
But there are indeed strange ebbs and flows per country though I don't see how everyone doesn't come into contact with Delta sooner or later.
As for the Union, the worst result in their history was 31% in 1949 followed by 33% in 2017. They are now polling around 20% - that's akin to the 1997 result for the UK Conservatives in terms of the magnitude of the disaster - if anything, it's actually worse.
The notion after a defeat of this scale the Union will want to stay in Government is put forward only by those who don't understand how political parties work. The Union will go into opposition and seek to re-group under Soeder (presumably) for 2025.
The GMS poll in Bavaria is fascinating:
Changes on 2017 Federal election:
CSU: 29% (-10)
Greens 18% (+8)
Social Democrats: 15%
Free Democrats: 13% (+3)
Alternative for Germany: 10% (-2.5)
Free Voters: 6% (+3)
Linke: 3% (-3)
That's a 9% swing from CSU to the Greens and a 5% swing from the CSU to SPD.
Last time, the CSU won all the constituencies in Bavaria but on these figures they'd lose four, two to the Greens and two to the SPD. The idea of the CSU losing a seat in Bavaria is up there with the UK Conservatives losing a seat in rural Lincolnshire.
It also shows the SPD may not be making ground in Bavaria so they are clearing doing very well in more industrial areas and in the former GDR.
However, even if you think that is acceptable, Berry is deceitful.
He attempted to suppress information about his property empire on Ynys Mon, which only came to light when he bought COVID to the island by **breaking lockdown regulations**
He does not have a house in Rossendale & Darwen, but pretends he does,
We have been talking about second home owners. Jake Berry owns at least 5 properties, none of which are in R&D. 4 are in Ynys Mon.
He is not some hard done by working class Northerner.
The consequence of this is that populations will continue to age, because the young can't afford to have babies and mass immigration is unpopular generally, but especially with olds.
The situation will eventually resolve itself when the population goes into outright decline, the glut of olds die off faster than babies are born, and enough housing is freed up that prices at least stabilise or ideally go into reverse. Once society is less burdened by both old people and housing costs, the remaining people will hopefully be better off and taxes will also come down.
Of course, to get from A to B will take many decades.
As @TheIFS have pointed out, the tax burden is now heading for the highest sustained level ever. Note it was ever so slightly higher in 1969/70 but that was a bit of a blip. Whereas the govt plans are for taxes to be high for a long time.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1435319566708748289
Lordy...
But its not anymore. Its tax, after tax, after tax loaded upon workers now literally in order to redistribute to those few who want bigger inheritances.
Its sick.
I don't believe in tax and redistribution, but if you're going to have tax and redistribution then redistribute to the poor and not spoilt rich kids who want a bigger inheritance.
The huge Conservative leads in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba mean a maximum of 62 seats so the battleground is clear.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1435319566708748289?s=20
Yet where is the radical thinking, the idea of personal provision via some form of insurance scheme for example?
The choice is either we get individuals to take personal responsibility for their later financial life (including care if needed), perhaps supporting families and carers who look after older relatives or we simply provide overarching social care provision free of charge funded from general taxation.
I'll be honest - I think it a reasonable aspiration for a civilised society to treat its elderly citizens with respect and dignity. That means more than discounted travel and tv licences - it's a cultural change required so older people aren't excluded from "mainstream" life.
However, Jake Berry does not own any property in R&D. The Welsh press went into the matter in some detail after the surprising discovery of his empire on Ynys Mon.
He claims for a property in R&D called Clough Cottage (actually owned by another local Tory -- good way for one Tory to funnel money to another
Clough Cottage is tiny -- but the great Northern Expert TSE is saying he lives there with his wife, their children and the nanny.
I think an enterprising journalist (or even the sleepy Labour party) could usefully do a little more digging into the expense claims of the member for R&D.
Yeah, yeah, ... and George Osborne has the one job, right!
We can't keep squeezing working people's incomes. It's so much harder to get on now in your 20s compared to the 1990s.
Wuhan, Madrid and Lombardy all looked scary from the outside. And then it arrived here. And it really wasn't as bad as it had looked. Which made you suspect that there had been some sensationalist editing going on, or at least picking the extreme rather than the representative stories. Which is after all what broadcast news does.
I'm very fussy when it comes to footwear.
A little here, a little there, every single week of your career certainly adds up. For people who are living paycheck to paycheck then a pound added to or subtracted from their disposable income every week of their life adds up.
£1 per week for everyone in the country, every week of the year, is £3.4 billion.
I can think of a few better things to spend £3 billion on than redistributing to featherbed some people's inheritance.
IIRC you're in favour of increasing defence spending.
In the North those on average incomes can buy their own homes without any assistance with few problems, in the South and London those on average incomes need an inheritance or gift from their family to buy.
Rural Bavaria will still be solid CSU and the CSU will still win Bavaria overall.
However it is not quite like 1997, for starters New Labour were not in government with the Tories then as the SPD are now in government with the CDU/CSU
What is someone without a gift or inheritance supposed to do in your eyes? At least in my book, people have somewhere to live even if its a new build that takes a year or two to get developed.
This is was the piece I was writing.
Sturgeon announced another referendum today, but not until the pandemic was over.
So why has her government tried to make Covid emergency legislation permanent?
By her own legislative approach, there can be no second referendum.
https://twitter.com/Jackson_Carlaw/status/1435327272844677128
Mr. Sandpit, Roman legions in Britannia wore socks with their sandals.
We are a democracy, and well-to-do, mortgage-free geriatrics and their ageing heirs (typically mortgaged property owners looking forward to fat legacies that will pay their way to early retirement and more besides) are a large, perhaps even dominant, constituency within the electorate. They are numerous, they vote enthusiastically, so they typically get what they want. It is as simple as that.
And on that positive note I'm signing off for the evening.
Goodnight.
It would require every new house constructed in the South to be affordable housing only available to local first time buyers who had lived there for 10 years or more, a severely restricted immigration system and a ban on foreign investment into London property to make any significant difference.
Plus most southerners want to preserve their countryside and greenbelt
The CSU will indeed be fine in the rural seats but could well lose seats in Munich and Nuremburg as you say in the more industrial areas. I suspect the Greens will finish second in a lot of seats as well.
After all, the Conservatives won all 11 seats in Surrey in 1997 but still lost the election in a landslide.
Too much to hope for it seems. "Give us everything and when we die you may be able to inherit some of it after we're gone" seems to be the order of the day.
If the supply of housing grows faster than the demand for it then the price/earnings ratios will come down.
If the supply grows slower than the demand, then they go up.
It really isn't rocket science or complicated beyond that. You could build nothing but luxury houses in the South and the price of houses in the South would come down if you built enough of them - the people living in OK houses would move into the new luxury ones, leaving the older OK ones for someone else.
The state will cover the long tail of a small number of people who have to pay more than that.
In London and the Home Counties unless you are a high earning professional, senior executive or work in the City then essentially you need to inherit to buy
It would not be average earners buying them