A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Having just read J. M Trow's Richard 111 and the North I set up a tour of the three castles locally involved - Sandal, Pontefract, and Conisbrough. Sandal was easy to find, free car park on site, cafe available, clear information boards, but not much to see. Pontefract more difficult to find, free car park some distance away, more remains but cafe not open. Conisbrough best preserved but car park privatised and needed to download app to park. Gave up. Sandal and Pontefract local authority run, Conisbrough English Heritage - nuff said.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Yes but a UBI would fund living costs not just housing costs
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
It’s not ignorant. The minimum wage is £8.91 so 2 hours work is just under £18 (close enough).
Of course the reality on the ground is something different - hence out of touch is a fair complaint - but it is accurate
It is ignorance - the idea that anyone of universal credit can receive money untaxed can only come from someone who has done zero research.
The only way it would occur is if the money was cash in hand and thag opens different issues for a Government minister
It’s misleading, like all politicians - in the way that a “£100m X from the defence budget would pay for Y nurses instead” is.
But accurate in its own terms
Its not accurate in its own terms.
The claim was that £20 lost from their bank accounts from UC could be replaced by 2 hours work. It can't. It is entirely false in its own terms.
Gross wages from 2 hours work are £18.
Politicians mislead. They always have done and always will do.
Btw your original claim was “ignorant” not “inaccurate”. This was not ignorant
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
The Freedom to live in other countries is something to treasure.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
Mike Smithson's comment is right of course. But there is no reason why any short term set of polls right now should adjust the odds on the GE 2024/2023. It is just too far away. There is no data that can seriously separate in likelihood the only two feasible outcomes, NOM and Tory majority. But ATM a Labour majority should be not more than a 5% chance.
Viewed from right now it looks close to a zero% chance, but allowance must be made for black swans - however a 13% chance is ludicrous. 48%/48%/4% is more like it.
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
The Freedom to live in other countries is something to treasure.
Not really freedom as it's part of the package deal I got when I married my wife!
It is "not in the hands" of ministers to guarantee there will be enough lorries on the roads to deliver presents on time this Christmas, the transport secretary has told MPs https://trib.al/EA4BULa
Don't be ridiculous. No HGV license is required for sleds and reindeer.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed in some nations on that basis. Some benefits are also time limited I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
It’s not ignorant. The minimum wage is £8.91 so 2 hours work is just under £18 (close enough).
Of course the reality on the ground is something different - hence out of touch is a fair complaint - but it is accurate
It is ignorant since the person working doesn't get £18 due to taper, NI and PAYE income tax. Do you think simply saying "you got £18 extra [but you'll only see £4.50 in your pay packet]" is an adequate response?
Reality on the ground isn't something different, its the system the politicians have created. So the claim was not accurate, earning £18 extra of which you get to keep only £4.50 does not replace £20 lost. It wasn't just inaccurate, it was completely wrong and shows the person speaking doesn't understand the system she is talking about.
It’s misleading, sure, but you said “ignorant” which is something different. I’m sure she knew exactly what she was doing
Mike Smithson's comment is right of course. But there is no reason why any short term set of polls right now should adjust the odds on the GE 2024/2023. It is just too far away. There is no data that can seriously separate in likelihood the only two feasible outcomes, NOM and Tory majority. But ATM a Labour majority should be not more than a 5% chance.
Viewed from right now it looks close to a zero% chance, but allowance must be made for black swans - however a 13% chance is ludicrous. 48%/48%/4% is more like it.
Agreed.
NOM is often priced way too short. I remember Antifrank losing a packet on NOM during one electoral cycle.
Really silly to emphasise the SNP 59 line. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Scottish politics knows there that simply isn't going to happen. I presume this is done on the basis of uniform swing, but we know that's just a convenient fiction.
Oh, quite, but it gives HYUFD something new to get aerated about.
He doesn't need an excuse. When exactly did he turn away from supporting Scottish independence?
Before my time on PB.
Not true. Last five years.
He advocated the morphing of the Conservatives into “the English Nationalist Party” during the summer. Then… predictably… denied all screenshots.
I was a Remainer and had a brief tantrum for a week after Leave won.
However compared to most Remainers that was pretty brief, I soon accepted the Brexit result and committed to making the best of it and returned to my normal pre EU Referendum Unionist self
Do you support the conservative mps who are going to quite rightly vote with labour against the abolition of the £20 UC uplift
If it was up to me I would be happy to see the abolition of the uplift so long as the real tax rate for poor working people should be slashed.
If the effective real tax rate was slashed to ~30% instead of 75% then absolutely remove the uplift and lets see people work more and keep more of their own money instead.
But you know that is not going to happen from any political party
I won't stop banging on about it and hopefully eventually it does get picked up by one party and dealt with.
Why should we have a real tax rate of 75%? How is that appropriate, fair or reasonable? How is it economic either as there'll be serious Laffer consequences from taxing at 75%.
Can you tell me where the peak is on the applicable Laffer curve?
I think HMRC did some work for Osborne and came out with 47-48%.
Feels instinctively about right - the government taking more than 50% in direct taxation feels wrong.
Osborne? You mean before we left the EU? Do you think leaving the EU will have influenced things?
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
Sometimes I wonder if you are a sentient specimen.
Edinburgh may be wealthy in Scottish terms but in UK terms it is not much higher than the average, certainly nowhere near as wealthy as Surrey or Bucks or Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
Frasier is probably my favourite tv comedy I reckon
Curb your Enthusiasm or any Alan Partridge for me.
Curb can be sublime.
Of course, the fact that our house is one episode (albeit only for about two seconds) is another bonus.
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
The Freedom to live in other countries is something to treasure.
Not really freedom as it's part of the package deal I got when I married my wife!
Well done to both of you, well coordinated indeed!
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
We share the same tastes. Ticks on every one you list.
Victoria Wood on I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue was a work of wonder.
I only discovered Sedaris last year. Totally in awe.
It's well worth going to a Sedaris event. Once you've heard him read his books, then his voice is forever in your head.
It's a depressing point to make but one that needs to be made nonetheless: a lot of this extra "investment" in public services will simply be soaked up by higher wages and prices.
We won't see any difference in output, and that's if we're lucky. We might very well tax ourselves into stagnation and see public services go backwards as well.
Liz Truss (reportedly) had the right answer. If the issue is a temporary backlog due to the lockdown etc then have temporary borrowing to cover the temporary costs. Keep the permanent tax rates to match the permanent expenditure.
That way the Treasury and the NHS know they need to get value for money and clear the backlog as the borrowing can't go on forever.
Instead we've seen a permanent tax rise, which will go to permanent pay rises, and then where do we stand?
If you look at NHS (80% spend on oldies) and Pensions (100% spend on oldies) then that's over 50% of all Government spending now and what's sucking all the oxygen out the room.
We really must start trimming entitlements there or we're going to break the bucket.
Especially as we’ve now stopped young people migrating here.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
Sometimes I wonder if you are a sentient specimen.
Edinburgh may be wealthy in Scottish terms but in UK terms it is not much higher than the average, certainly nowhere near as wealthy as Surrey or Bucks or Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea
Point proven. Completely incapable of thinking outside own tedious little box.
It is "not in the hands" of ministers to guarantee there will be enough lorries on the roads to deliver presents on time this Christmas, the transport secretary has told MPs https://trib.al/EA4BULa
Don't be ridiculous. No HGV license is required for sleds and reindeer.
Wrong. There is under the Elf & Safety legislation.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster which are still Conservative than Labour Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Really silly to emphasise the SNP 59 line. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Scottish politics knows there that simply isn't going to happen. I presume this is done on the basis of uniform swing, but we know that's just a convenient fiction.
Oh, quite, but it gives HYUFD something new to get aerated about.
He doesn't need an excuse. When exactly did he turn away from supporting Scottish independence?
Before my time on PB.
Not true. Last five years.
He advocated the morphing of the Conservatives into “the English Nationalist Party” during the summer. Then… predictably… denied all screenshots.
I was a Remainer and had a brief tantrum for a week after Leave won.
However compared to most Remainers that was pretty brief, I soon accepted the Brexit result and committed to making the best of it and returned to my normal pre EU Referendum Unionist self
Do you support the conservative mps who are going to quite rightly vote with labour against the abolition of the £20 UC uplift
If it was up to me I would be happy to see the abolition of the uplift so long as the real tax rate for poor working people should be slashed.
If the effective real tax rate was slashed to ~30% instead of 75% then absolutely remove the uplift and lets see people work more and keep more of their own money instead.
But you know that is not going to happen from any political party
I won't stop banging on about it and hopefully eventually it does get picked up by one party and dealt with.
Why should we have a real tax rate of 75%? How is that appropriate, fair or reasonable? How is it economic either as there'll be serious Laffer consequences from taxing at 75%.
Can you tell me where the peak is on the applicable Laffer curve?
I think HMRC did some work for Osborne and came out with 47-48%.
Feels instinctively about right - the government taking more than 50% in direct taxation feels wrong.
Osborne? You mean before we left the EU? Do you think leaving the EU will have influenced things?
Probably not. Laffer curve relates to individual response to incentives on work
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
The Freedom to live in other countries is something to treasure.
Not really freedom as it's part of the package deal I got when I married my wife!
I have lived for significant portions of time in USA, Australia, and New Zealand. Living in another country is a great experience, and the distance helps understand both what is good and bad about home. The freedom to be able to do so is not available to everyone, for a variety of reasons, family, health, economics, it is to be embraced when the chance comes.
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
We share the same tastes. Ticks on every one you list.
Victoria Wood on I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue was a work of wonder.
I only discovered Sedaris last year. Totally in awe.
It's well worth going to a Sedaris event. Once you've heard him read his books, then his voice is forever in your head.
It’s through his voice I learned to love him. I subsequently borrowed one of his books from the library, but really struggled with it. But that voice! Mesmerising. Would love to see him live.
It's a depressing point to make but one that needs to be made nonetheless: a lot of this extra "investment" in public services will simply be soaked up by higher wages and prices.
We won't see any difference in output, and that's if we're lucky. We might very well tax ourselves into stagnation and see public services go backwards as well.
Liz Truss (reportedly) had the right answer. If the issue is a temporary backlog due to the lockdown etc then have temporary borrowing to cover the temporary costs. Keep the permanent tax rates to match the permanent expenditure.
That way the Treasury and the NHS know they need to get value for money and clear the backlog as the borrowing can't go on forever.
Instead we've seen a permanent tax rise, which will go to permanent pay rises, and then where do we stand?
If you look at NHS (80% spend on oldies) and Pensions (100% spend on oldies) then that's over 50% of all Government spending now and what's sucking all the oxygen out the room.
We really must start trimming entitlements there or we're going to break the bucket.
Austerity - for the rest of government spending - is permanent.
Really silly to emphasise the SNP 59 line. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Scottish politics knows there that simply isn't going to happen. I presume this is done on the basis of uniform swing, but we know that's just a convenient fiction.
Oh, quite, but it gives HYUFD something new to get aerated about.
He doesn't need an excuse. When exactly did he turn away from supporting Scottish independence?
Before my time on PB.
Not true. Last five years.
He advocated the morphing of the Conservatives into “the English Nationalist Party” during the summer. Then… predictably… denied all screenshots.
I was a Remainer and had a brief tantrum for a week after Leave won.
However compared to most Remainers that was pretty brief, I soon accepted the Brexit result and committed to making the best of it and returned to my normal pre EU Referendum Unionist self
Do you support the conservative mps who are going to quite rightly vote with labour against the abolition of the £20 UC uplift
If it was up to me I would be happy to see the abolition of the uplift so long as the real tax rate for poor working people should be slashed.
If the effective real tax rate was slashed to ~30% instead of 75% then absolutely remove the uplift and lets see people work more and keep more of their own money instead.
But you know that is not going to happen from any political party
I won't stop banging on about it and hopefully eventually it does get picked up by one party and dealt with.
Why should we have a real tax rate of 75%? How is that appropriate, fair or reasonable? How is it economic either as there'll be serious Laffer consequences from taxing at 75%.
Can you tell me where the peak is on the applicable Laffer curve?
I think HMRC did some work for Osborne and came out with 47-48%.
Feels instinctively about right - the government taking more than 50% in direct taxation feels wrong.
Osborne? You mean before we left the EU? Do you think leaving the EU will have influenced things?
Probably not. Laffer curve relates to individual response to incentives on work
But moving a person and/or a business across a border that has increased barriers compared to ten years ago could well change the tolerance for staying put.
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
Frasier is probably my favourite tv comedy I reckon
Curb your Enthusiasm or any Alan Partridge for me.
Curb can be sublime.
Of course, the fact that our house is one episode (albeit only for about two seconds) is another bonus.
My uncle’s house was used for Miss Marple, while my private office was in Bridget Jones and various others
It's a depressing point to make but one that needs to be made nonetheless: a lot of this extra "investment" in public services will simply be soaked up by higher wages and prices.
We won't see any difference in output, and that's if we're lucky. We might very well tax ourselves into stagnation and see public services go backwards as well.
Liz Truss (reportedly) had the right answer. If the issue is a temporary backlog due to the lockdown etc then have temporary borrowing to cover the temporary costs. Keep the permanent tax rates to match the permanent expenditure.
That way the Treasury and the NHS know they need to get value for money and clear the backlog as the borrowing can't go on forever.
Instead we've seen a permanent tax rise, which will go to permanent pay rises, and then where do we stand?
If you look at NHS (80% spend on oldies) and Pensions (100% spend on oldies) then that's over 50% of all Government spending now and what's sucking all the oxygen out the room.
We really must start trimming entitlements there or we're going to break the bucket.
Austerity - for the rest of government spending - is permanent.
And not just here. The demographics are fairly universal. Even many developing countries are ageing quickly.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
Really silly to emphasise the SNP 59 line. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Scottish politics knows there that simply isn't going to happen. I presume this is done on the basis of uniform swing, but we know that's just a convenient fiction.
Oh, quite, but it gives HYUFD something new to get aerated about.
He doesn't need an excuse. When exactly did he turn away from supporting Scottish independence?
Before my time on PB.
Not true. Last five years.
He advocated the morphing of the Conservatives into “the English Nationalist Party” during the summer. Then… predictably… denied all screenshots.
I was a Remainer and had a brief tantrum for a week after Leave won.
However compared to most Remainers that was pretty brief, I soon accepted the Brexit result and committed to making the best of it and returned to my normal pre EU Referendum Unionist self
Do you support the conservative mps who are going to quite rightly vote with labour against the abolition of the £20 UC uplift
If it was up to me I would be happy to see the abolition of the uplift so long as the real tax rate for poor working people should be slashed.
If the effective real tax rate was slashed to ~30% instead of 75% then absolutely remove the uplift and lets see people work more and keep more of their own money instead.
But you know that is not going to happen from any political party
I won't stop banging on about it and hopefully eventually it does get picked up by one party and dealt with.
Why should we have a real tax rate of 75%? How is that appropriate, fair or reasonable? How is it economic either as there'll be serious Laffer consequences from taxing at 75%.
Can you tell me where the peak is on the applicable Laffer curve?
I think HMRC did some work for Osborne and came out with 47-48%.
Feels instinctively about right - the government taking more than 50% in direct taxation feels wrong.
Osborne? You mean before we left the EU? Do you think leaving the EU will have influenced things?
Probably not. Laffer curve relates to individual response to incentives on work
But moving a person and/or a business across a border that has increased barriers compared to ten years ago could well change the tolerance for staying put.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster which are still Conservative than Labour Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
It's a depressing point to make but one that needs to be made nonetheless: a lot of this extra "investment" in public services will simply be soaked up by higher wages and prices.
We won't see any difference in output, and that's if we're lucky. We might very well tax ourselves into stagnation and see public services go backwards as well.
Liz Truss (reportedly) had the right answer. If the issue is a temporary backlog due to the lockdown etc then have temporary borrowing to cover the temporary costs. Keep the permanent tax rates to match the permanent expenditure.
That way the Treasury and the NHS know they need to get value for money and clear the backlog as the borrowing can't go on forever.
Instead we've seen a permanent tax rise, which will go to permanent pay rises, and then where do we stand?
If you look at NHS (80% spend on oldies) and Pensions (100% spend on oldies) then that's over 50% of all Government spending now and what's sucking all the oxygen out the room.
We really must start trimming entitlements there or we're going to break the bucket.
Austerity - for the rest of government spending - is permanent.
And not just here. The demographics are fairly universal. Even many developing countries are ageing quickly.
Part of the answer is productivity. We need intense investment in new technology so that the dwindling remaining young workers can deliver for the ageing population.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
Sometimes I wonder if you are a sentient specimen.
Edinburgh may be wealthy in Scottish terms but in UK terms it is not much higher than the average, certainly nowhere near as wealthy as Surrey or Bucks or Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea
Point proven. Completely incapable of thinking outside own tedious little box.
Clearly you are, the average house price in Edinburgh is below the average house price in the East and SW of England let alone the South East of England and the richest parts of London.
Hence in UK general elections it does not vote Tory, in UK terms it is not that wealthy an area
It's a depressing point to make but one that needs to be made nonetheless: a lot of this extra "investment" in public services will simply be soaked up by higher wages and prices.
We won't see any difference in output, and that's if we're lucky. We might very well tax ourselves into stagnation and see public services go backwards as well.
Liz Truss (reportedly) had the right answer. If the issue is a temporary backlog due to the lockdown etc then have temporary borrowing to cover the temporary costs. Keep the permanent tax rates to match the permanent expenditure.
That way the Treasury and the NHS know they need to get value for money and clear the backlog as the borrowing can't go on forever.
Instead we've seen a permanent tax rise, which will go to permanent pay rises, and then where do we stand?
If you look at NHS (80% spend on oldies) and Pensions (100% spend on oldies) then that's over 50% of all Government spending now and what's sucking all the oxygen out the room.
We really must start trimming entitlements there or we're going to break the bucket.
Austerity - for the rest of government spending - is permanent.
And not just here. The demographics are fairly universal. Even many developing countries are ageing quickly.
Part of the answer is productivity. We need intense investment in new technology so that the dwindling remaining young workers can deliver for the ageing population.
No, it's the other way around. We decide exactly what is deliverable to the older population and then stop chasing life expectancy gain.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
Sometimes I wonder if you are a sentient specimen.
Edinburgh may be wealthy in Scottish terms but in UK terms it is not much higher than the average, certainly nowhere near as wealthy as Surrey or Bucks or Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea
Point proven. Completely incapable of thinking outside own tedious little box.
Clearly you are, the average house price in Edinburgh is below the average house price in the East and SW of England let alone the South East of England and the richest parts of London.
Hence in UK general elections it does not vote Tory, in UK terms it is not that wealthy an area
Edinburgh is not in East and SW of England (this is what you're like)
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
Frasier is probably my favourite tv comedy I reckon
Curb your Enthusiasm or any Alan Partridge for me.
Curb can be sublime.
Of course, the fact that our house is one episode (albeit only for about two seconds) is another bonus.
My uncle’s house was used for Miss Marple, while my private office was in Bridget Jones and various others
My sister in law lives in the same suburban estate used for the Dursleys in Harry Potter.
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
We share the same tastes. Ticks on every one you list.
Victoria Wood on I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue was a work of wonder.
I only discovered Sedaris last year. Totally in awe.
It's well worth going to a Sedaris event. Once you've heard him read his books, then his voice is forever in your head.
It’s through his voice I learned to love him. I subsequently borrowed one of his books from the library, but really struggled with it. But that voice! Mesmerising. Would love to see him live.
Lots of his spoken stuff has been on R4, unfortunately it doesn't seem to be archived on BBC Sounds.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
We share the same tastes. Ticks on every one you list.
Victoria Wood on I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue was a work of wonder.
I only discovered Sedaris last year. Totally in awe.
It's well worth going to a Sedaris event. Once you've heard him read his books, then his voice is forever in your head.
It’s through his voice I learned to love him. I subsequently borrowed one of his books from the library, but really struggled with it. But that voice! Mesmerising. Would love to see him live.
Lots of his spoken stuff has been on R4, unfortunately it doesn't seem to be archived on BBC Sounds.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
Sometimes I wonder if you are a sentient specimen.
Edinburgh may be wealthy in Scottish terms but in UK terms it is not much higher than the average, certainly nowhere near as wealthy as Surrey or Bucks or Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea
Point proven. Completely incapable of thinking outside own tedious little box.
Clearly you are, the average house price in Edinburgh is below the average house price in the East and SW of England let alone the South East of England and the richest parts of London.
Hence in UK general elections it does not vote Tory, in UK terms it is not that wealthy an area
Edinburgh is not in East and SW of England (this is what you're like)
It is in the UK and in UK terms Edinburgh average house prices are about the same as those in the West Midlands
With 90% of votes counted, two parties - one from each bloc - look like they have failed to reach the 4% threshold.
Christian Democrats (blue): 3.95% Greens (red): 3.76%
This is a bigger blow to the blue bloc than the red, as the Christian Democrats had 8 legislators whereas the Greens only had one.
The Christian Democrats suffered from the same problem that the LibDems did here - they joined a Conservative government. Half their voters were not amused.
Huge congratulations @MaxPB. Hope you will continue to post on PB despite your new location, the UK is losing a great talent in you.
And best wishes to your wife too, sending good luck
Thanks CHB! I think it's an odd sensation because in the back of my mind I know this is probably a forever move and eventually coming back to the UK will be visiting and going to Switzerland will be going home.
Huge congratulations @MaxPB. Hope you will continue to post on PB despite your new location, the UK is losing a great talent in you.
And best wishes to your wife too, sending good luck
Thanks CHB! I think it's an odd sensation because in the back of my mind I know this is probably a forever move and eventually coming back to the UK will be visiting and going to Switzerland will be going home.
We will miss you hugely here I am sure - but you have to do what is right for you and your family at all times. As a visitor, we will still be all the better for you being here even occasionally.
Noticeable how the Norwegian conservatives still holding Oslo, even in a poor year. Contrast with London.
The map of Norway is entirely red, apart from some blue and green bits in the far south west + Oslo.
Oslo is the 5th most expensive city in the world, it has a lot of rich residents and more in common with Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster than Newham or Lewisham or Hackney or Croydon
Not all wealthy places vote conservative. Eg. Edinburgh.
Edinburgh voted for Ruth Davidson, Edinburgh is more Conservative than Scotland as a whole (at least it was before Brexit).
Edinburgh is also still not as wealthy as Oslo
How many Conservative mps and msps does Edinburgh have?
Edinburgh is not that wealthy, certainly outside of central and west Edinburgh, its average house price is below that of most areas in the home counties let along Chelsea and Westminster. Though before 1997 it still elected a Tory MP in Pentlands and Edinburgh West when most of Scotland had Labour MPs.
Sometimes I wonder if you are a sentient specimen.
Edinburgh may be wealthy in Scottish terms but in UK terms it is not much higher than the average, certainly nowhere near as wealthy as Surrey or Bucks or Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea
Point proven. Completely incapable of thinking outside own tedious little box.
Clearly you are, the average house price in Edinburgh is below the average house price in the East and SW of England let alone the South East of England and the richest parts of London.
Hence in UK general elections it does not vote Tory, in UK terms it is not that wealthy an area
Edinburgh is not in East and SW of England (this is what you're like)
It is in the UK and in UK terms Edinburgh average house prices are about the same as those in the West Midlands
The West Midlands is not in Edinburgh. (this is going to become a regular feature)
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
The Freedom to live in other countries is something to treasure.
Not really freedom as it's part of the package deal I got when I married my wife!
I have lived for significant portions of time in USA, Australia, and New Zealand. Living in another country is a great experience, and the distance helps understand both what is good and bad about home. The freedom to be able to do so is not available to everyone, for a variety of reasons, family, health, economics, it is to be embraced when the chance comes.
Yes, I've spent five happy years in the US and three very happy ones in the Caribbean. We are blessed to live on a beautiful planet, full of a variety of interesting things, people and places. Everyone should have the opportunity to travel, experience other places, live and work overseas, it is so odd to me that some people are so fixated on preventing other people from enjoying these privileges. The most interesting thing about travel is that when (if) you return home, you appreciate it all the more.
With 90% of votes counted, two parties - one from each bloc - look like they have failed to reach the 4% threshold.
Christian Democrats (blue): 3.95% Greens (red): 3.76%
This is a bigger blow to the blue bloc than the red, as the Christian Democrats had 8 legislators whereas the Greens only had one.
The Christian Democrats suffered from the same problem that the LibDems did here - they joined a Conservative government. Half their voters were not amused.
The Christian Democrats had supported the Conservatives in 2013 too
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
This has been one of the poorest discussion threads on PB for a while. Rather than current mid term polls in tricky period for government being meaningless, they are an excellent long term guide of what is likely to happen at next GE. If polling is as bad for Labour now as it is this week, you’d have to be McCawber to think there is anything that can get the electorate to accept Starmer as PM. If he fails to gain 45+ seats he is toast, his party won’t give him a second chance, and on mid term polling he isn’t getting anywhere near gaining 40 seats. Labour elected a remainer dud.
It’s Red Brex. Lifelong Labour voters sticking with the Tory party in key urban and metropolitan constituencies, don’t over preoccupy on the north, it’s solidly Tory midlands Labour are not making roads into as the next GE results get read out.
Betting wise, any money placed on Starmer as next PM is straight down the drain, Red Brex are telling you this today, how they are answering every poll question. On who would make best PM Starmer is going backwards in mid term protest polls.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
The major driver of it was our non-contributory benefits system. Your inability to deduce never ceases to amaze me, sometimes it is exactly like interacting with an AI.
This has been one of the poorest discussion threads on PB for a while. Rather than current mid term polls in tricky period for government being meaningless, they are an excellent long term guide of what is likely to happen at next GE. If polling is as bad for Labour now as it is this week, you’d have to be McCawber to think there is anything that can get the electorate to accept Starmer as PM. If he fails to gain 45+ seats he is toast, his party won’t give him a second chance, and on mid term polling he isn’t getting anywhere near gaining 40 seats. Labour elected a remainer dud.
It’s Red Brex. Lifelong Labour voters sticking with the Tory party in key urban and metropolitan constituencies, don’t over preoccupy on the north, it’s solidly Tory midlands Labour are not making roads into as the next GE results get read out.
Betting wise, any money placed on Starmer as next PM is straight down the drain, Red Brex are telling you this today, how they are answering every poll question. On who would make best PM Starmer is going backwards in mid term protest polls.
You keep telling us it's a disaster for Labour - I very strongly disagree.
They lost in a landslide and even three months ago the Tories were 20 points ahead. Labour is clearly going in the right direction.
I personally believe the next election is likely to be 2010 in reverse, the polls leading up to 2010 were never a massive lead one way or the other.
Huge congratulations @MaxPB. Hope you will continue to post on PB despite your new location, the UK is losing a great talent in you.
And best wishes to your wife too, sending good luck
Thanks CHB! I think it's an odd sensation because in the back of my mind I know this is probably a forever move and eventually coming back to the UK will be visiting and going to Switzerland will be going home.
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
Belated congratulations and best wishes. I was extremely happy in Switzerland - it was only love of politics that brought me back, as Swiss politics are... not very exciting. One tip for what it's worth - don't only cluster with other UK exiles but dip into the local culture too. It might be better or worse but it's interestingly different, and the Brits who hang about in the English-speaking club playing bingo and making jokes about the Swiss are just missing out for no good reason. Will be interested to hear what you make of it.
It's a depressing point to make but one that needs to be made nonetheless: a lot of this extra "investment" in public services will simply be soaked up by higher wages and prices.
We won't see any difference in output, and that's if we're lucky. We might very well tax ourselves into stagnation and see public services go backwards as well.
Liz Truss (reportedly) had the right answer. If the issue is a temporary backlog due to the lockdown etc then have temporary borrowing to cover the temporary costs. Keep the permanent tax rates to match the permanent expenditure.
That way the Treasury and the NHS know they need to get value for money and clear the backlog as the borrowing can't go on forever.
Instead we've seen a permanent tax rise, which will go to permanent pay rises, and then where do we stand?
If you look at NHS (80% spend on oldies) and Pensions (100% spend on oldies) then that's over 50% of all Government spending now and what's sucking all the oxygen out the room.
We really must start trimming entitlements there or we're going to break the bucket.
Austerity - for the rest of government spending - is permanent.
And not just here. The demographics are fairly universal. Even many developing countries are ageing quickly.
Part of the answer is productivity. We need intense investment in new technology so that the dwindling remaining young workers can deliver for the ageing population.
The move to a service based economy does rather limit productivity rises. A restaurant could have one server for 12 tables rather than 6, but would it be the same experience?
There is an interesting case to be made that stagnant productivity is a feature of late economic development.
Vollrath wrote an interesting book featuring this idea.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
The major driver of it was our non-contributory benefits system. Your inability to deduce never ceases to amaze me, sometimes it is exactly like interacting with an AI.
I do genuinely think at times HYUFD is here to play some sort of line and he has to stick to it, I think he's a nice enough chap but it is a bit odd
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
Switzerland's not in Eastern Europe.
The Swiss did impose transition controls on migrants from Eastern Europe in 2004 unlike the Blair government here
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
The major driver of it was our non-contributory benefits system. Your inability to deduce never ceases to amaze me, sometimes it is exactly like interacting with an AI.
No the main driver of it was the failure of the Blair government to impose transition controls on free movement from Eastern Europe unlike most EU nations leading to downward pressures on wages and pressure on housing and public servcies.
A more contributory benefits system may have helped but it was the downward pressure on wages and competition for low skilled jobs working class Leavers were voting against
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
Belated congratulations and best wishes. I was extremely happy in Switzerland - it was only love of politics that brought me back, as Swiss politics are... not very exciting. One tip for what it's worth - don't only cluster with other UK exiles but dip into the local culture too. It might be better or worse but it's interestingly different, and the Brits who hang about in the English-speaking club playing bingo and making jokes about the Swiss are just missing out for no good reason. Will be interested to hear what you make of it.
Thanks, my German is a bit rubbish but on the other hand my Italian is pretty good now. Not sure how useful it will be in Zurich though. Might try and find the Italian speaking Swiss people in Zurich and make friends with them. Last time I lived out there I hung around mostly with people from work which was a mistake in retrospect as you never really get away from them. My wife has a fairly well established network in Zurich but I'll be starting from scratch so appreciate the advice!
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
Switzerland's not in Eastern Europe.
The Swiss did impose transition controls on migrants from Eastern Europe in 2004 unlike the Blair government here
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
Switzerland's not in Eastern Europe.
The Swiss did impose transition controls on migrants from Eastern Europe in 2004 unlike the Blair government here
Huge congratulations @MaxPB. Hope you will continue to post on PB despite your new location, the UK is losing a great talent in you.
And best wishes to your wife too, sending good luck
Thanks CHB! I think it's an odd sensation because in the back of my mind I know this is probably a forever move and eventually coming back to the UK will be visiting and going to Switzerland will be going home.
Have I missed some news?
Yeah, just some personal news, my wife and I are moving to Zurich next year, my company finally approved the move after 6 months of dithering.
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
Belated congratulations and best wishes. I was extremely happy in Switzerland - it was only love of politics that brought me back, as Swiss politics are... not very exciting. One tip for what it's worth - don't only cluster with other UK exiles but dip into the local culture too. It might be better or worse but it's interestingly different, and the Brits who hang about in the English-speaking club playing bingo and making jokes about the Swiss are just missing out for no good reason. Will be interested to hear what you make of it.
Thanks, my German is a bit rubbish but on the other hand my Italian is pretty good now. Not sure how useful it will be in Zurich though. Might try and find the Italian speaking Swiss people in Zurich and make friends with them. Last time I lived out there I hung around mostly with people from work which was a mistake in retrospect as you never really get away from them. My wife has a fairly well established network in Zurich but I'll be starting from scratch so appreciate the advice!
Learn German. Well. Very, very well. Make a genuine effort to integrate. Avoid English-language media and environments, especially in the early years. Do not send your children to English/“international” cult schools. Swiss schools only.
This has been one of the poorest discussion threads on PB for a while. Rather than current mid term polls in tricky period for government being meaningless, they are an excellent long term guide of what is likely to happen at next GE. If polling is as bad for Labour now as it is this week, you’d have to be McCawber to think there is anything that can get the electorate to accept Starmer as PM. If he fails to gain 45+ seats he is toast, his party won’t give him a second chance, and on mid term polling he isn’t getting anywhere near gaining 40 seats. Labour elected a remainer dud.
It’s Red Brex. Lifelong Labour voters sticking with the Tory party in key urban and metropolitan constituencies, don’t over preoccupy on the north, it’s solidly Tory midlands Labour are not making roads into as the next GE results get read out.
Betting wise, any money placed on Starmer as next PM is straight down the drain, Red Brex are telling you this today, how they are answering every poll question. On who would make best PM Starmer is going backwards in mid term protest polls.
even three months ago the Tories were 20 points ahead. .
If anyone is uncomfortable with the thought of Rayner a heartbeat away from PM, so can’t vote Labour because of it, you may soon lose your excuse. The role of deputy leader can be looked at conference. Starmer almost certainly has the 2/3 majority at NEC to scrap the pointless and vote losing elected deputy post, and be able to appoint his own veep to stand in for him, which is far saner than having a deputy leader dumped on a leader, or a PM like Rainer dumper on the British People, so eminently sellable as a tweak to help Labour be more electable.
Are there any Labour members on tonight. How do you feel about Starmer being rid of the liability of Rayner using this mechanism, and say, nominating Reeves to fill in for him instead?
You can’t possibly argue against Starmer doing this surely?
With 90% of votes counted, two parties - one from each bloc - look like they have failed to reach the 4% threshold.
Christian Democrats (blue): 3.95% Greens (red): 3.76%
This is a bigger blow to the blue bloc than the red, as the Christian Democrats had 8 legislators whereas the Greens only had one.
The Christian Democrats suffered from the same problem that the LibDems did here - they joined a Conservative government. Half their voters were not amused.
Yet the Social Democrats in Germany were in a Conservative-led government and seem to be doing rather well.
Huge congratulations @MaxPB. Hope you will continue to post on PB despite your new location, the UK is losing a great talent in you.
And best wishes to your wife too, sending good luck
Thanks CHB! I think it's an odd sensation because in the back of my mind I know this is probably a forever move and eventually coming back to the UK will be visiting and going to Switzerland will be going home.
Have I missed some news?
Yeah, just some personal news, my wife and I are moving to Zurich next year, my company finally approved the move after 6 months of dithering.
Best of luck!! Exciting times.
Hopefully you will be allowed access to PB to update us on the politics of the cantons.
If anyone is uncomfortable with the thought of Rayner a heartbeat away from PM, so can’t vote Labour because of it, you may soon lose your excuse. The role of deputy leader can be looked at conference. Starmer almost certainly has the 2/3 majority at NEC to scrap the pointless and vote losing elected deputy post, and be able to appoint his own veep to stand in for him, which is far saner than having a deputy leader dumped on a leader, or a PM like Rainer dumper on the British People, so eminently sellable as a tweak to help Labour be more electable.
Are there any Labour members on tonight. How do you feel about Starmer being rid of the liability of Rayner using this mechanism, and say, nominating Reeves to fill in for him instead?
You can’t possibly argue against Starmer doing this surely?
We don't have that kind of system. The PM is he or she who can command the confidence of the Commons. If a PM dies, the role of deputy party leader might well influence some MPs but it will not decide a thing.
- Laurel and Hardy: still very funny indeed. - Some Like it Hot and Dr Strangelove - sublime - Surprised no-one mentioned Frasier which is one of the best TV comedies ever: a wonderful mix of character, farce, wit and physical comedy. David Hyde-Pierce is a brilliant comic actor. - Stand ups: Victoria Wood - taken far too early. She had so much to give still. Dylan Moran. Eddie Izzard - when he was a comedian (and not the pompous bore he's now become). But the master of them all is still Dave Allen. - Yes Minister is still very funny. Blackadder too. - David Sedaris has written and delivered some very funny pieces.
But the best comedy to my mind combines observation, unexpected connections and some underlying truth. Too much of it nowadays is so predictable and therefore unfunny.
Frasier is probably my favourite tv comedy I reckon
Curb your Enthusiasm or any Alan Partridge for me.
Curb can be sublime.
Of course, the fact that our house is one episode (albeit only for about two seconds) is another bonus.
My uncle’s house was used for Miss Marple, while my private office was in Bridget Jones and various others
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
Belated congratulations and best wishes. I was extremely happy in Switzerland - it was only love of politics that brought me back, as Swiss politics are... not very exciting. One tip for what it's worth - don't only cluster with other UK exiles but dip into the local culture too. It might be better or worse but it's interestingly different, and the Brits who hang about in the English-speaking club playing bingo and making jokes about the Swiss are just missing out for no good reason. Will be interested to hear what you make of it.
Thanks, my German is a bit rubbish but on the other hand my Italian is pretty good now. Not sure how useful it will be in Zurich though. Might try and find the Italian speaking Swiss people in Zurich and make friends with them. Last time I lived out there I hung around mostly with people from work which was a mistake in retrospect as you never really get away from them. My wife has a fairly well established network in Zurich but I'll be starting from scratch so appreciate the advice!
Learn German. Well. Very, very well. Make a genuine effort to integrate. Avoid English-language media and environments, especially in the early years. Do not send your children to English/“international” cult schools. Swiss schools only.
I just really loathe the language but it's on the list of things to do. I was actually being fairly serious about finding the Italian speaking people in Zurich, my Italian is pretty good, I'm not fluent but could probably live in Italy (or Lugano) without too many people realising I'm not a native.
On education, it's one of the primary motivators to move to Switzerland. The education system for primary and secondary is, IMO, world class. My wife got such a broader education than I did and the attitude to achievement and expectations in Switzerland is much better than what I experienced vs what she experienced.
A UC claimant doing 2 hours more work gets about £4.50 net after tax and NI and UC taper.
The bad thing is that nobody in the media has a clue how it works either so she can say that and not be challenged there and then for talking through her arse.
She just has been on ITV main news
You really despair about the inept way she came across
It is reputed 100 conservative mps are against the abolition of the uplift and I really hope they vote with labour later this week and shame HMG
The thing is they clearly don't understand the system they've created themselves.
The problem for years now is that the income tax rates have been fudged, so now nobody has a clue that doesn't pay attention that the income tax rate for someone on UC is 75% - and its going to be even higher once this recent tax rise goes up too. 🤦♂️
Why do we tax those less fortunate than ourselves 75%. Its disgusting and nobody campaigns against it.
Not sure how the Income tax rate could be 75%. Could you explain?
"According to Labour, the current system means that a single parent working 30 hours a week on the national living wage loses £573 a month of their universal credit entitlement – equivalent to a marginal tax rate of 75%. It contrasts this with the 47% marginal tax rate faced by people earning over £150,000 a year, such as the prime minister." In that Graun piece I posted just a moment ago.
OIC, you are referring to marginal tax rate.
Not sure how you deal with that. Not have a UC taper? Abolish UC? Increase the Tax allowance to cover it?
You can't - which is why everyone tries to avoid talking about the issue
Universal Basic Income (UBI) gets round the problem. There is no disincentive to work as don't lose any UBI.
The problem with UBI is that it is so expensive, and the taxes you have to raise to pay for it create a disincentive to work even if the UBI itself doesn't. The second problem is that some people will choose not to work, figuring they can get by on UBI, and waste their life smoking dope and playing video games instead of doing something useful. Yes, work can be drudgery and exploitative, but it can also teach discipline and self-reliance. The third issue I have with it is more philosophical I suppose: why shouldn't people who are capable of working for a living go out and earn their own money instead of sponging off everyone else? Sorry for sounding like a Tory. But I think the government should be doing a lot more for children, the disabled, refugees, the environment etc not simply paying able bodied grown adults to sit on their arses all day!
The first problem: Yes taxes create a disincentive but unless you're talking about 75% we're looking at a lower disincentive than what exists today.
The second and third problem: People can already do that on our existing welfare system and once doing that the barriers/disincentives for getting into work are much steeper than what would exist under the proposed system.
Under our existing welfare system you have to be actively seeking work and provide evidence of that to continue to claim.
A UBI by definition would have no such requirement as everyone would get it automatically
That's not actually quite true.
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
Something else that Switzerland does a lot better than anywhere else in the world is unemployment benefits. A fully contributory system that pays a percentage of your previous wage with a maximum cap for up to 18 months if you've done 3 years of work within the last 4 and 12 months if you've done 2 years in the last 3 or something along those lines. It's generous but difficult to qualify and there's no real concept of long term unemployment or benefits cheats etc... as it's just not possible.
Except if you have not contributed enough and are unemployed then you are stuffed, Switzerland has no non contributory benefits. The benefits are also time limited.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
The contribution is time based and only needs 12 months of work in the last 24 to qualify at 80% of your previous wage for 6 months. It's a very low bar and because they don't have idiotic things like housing benefits or in work subsidies no one lives beyond their means and employers pay decent wages so 80% is not an issue.
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
In any case it was downward pressure on wages from migration especially from Eastern Europe without transition controls which was the main reason for working class voters voting Leave, not the fact we did not have a more contributory benefits system
The major driver of it was our non-contributory benefits system. Your inability to deduce never ceases to amaze me, sometimes it is exactly like interacting with an AI.
Was it though? Would immigrants coming for benefits put downward pressure on wages? Surely they are mostly coming here to work at higher wages than they'd been getting in the old country? Both could be true, of course.
But as a cause of Brexit? To a point but a lot of red wall and seaside towns were economically harmed before notable immigration.
In May 1992, the average of the polls was about C44L36, a Conservative lead of 8 points or so. By early September 1992, that had closed to roughly C40L40. The funny thing is that the polls started to close before John Smith became leader, and well before Black Wednesday. In fact, the funniest thing is that Black Wednesday didn't really show up in the trends- there was no Conservative collapse, no Labour surge, just a continuation of the same smooth decay that had already started. Sure, crossover happened in September, but that was already written in the stars, so to speak. What did for Major was a combination of how low that gradual fall took him and how hard it was to pick up afterwards.
PB wasn't around in 1992, but it's easy to imagine people looking at the late September polling and being intensely relaxed about how Black Wednesday hadn't really cut though etc...
Fast-forward to now. In May 2019, the average of the polls was about C43L32 and by the start of this month that had closed to about C39L34. So Johnson's Conservatives are doing about as well as Major's Conservatives and Starmer's Labour is doing noticeably worse than Smith's Labour. How much that is just because Scottish voters have decided to play their own games instead, I don't know.
Trends don't last forever. But the current trend is not in the Conservatives' favour and a prolonged gradual decline adds up to a lot.
Huge congratulations @MaxPB. Hope you will continue to post on PB despite your new location, the UK is losing a great talent in you.
And best wishes to your wife too, sending good luck
Thanks CHB! I think it's an odd sensation because in the back of my mind I know this is probably a forever move and eventually coming back to the UK will be visiting and going to Switzerland will be going home.
Have I missed some news?
Yeah, just some personal news, my wife and I are moving to Zurich next year, my company finally approved the move after 6 months of dithering.
Best of luck!! Exciting times.
Hopefully you will be allowed access to PB to update us on the politics of the cantons.
Thanks! Don't think Switzerland has got a Chinese style firewall just yet or that the UK will put one up so I'll still be kicking around these parts. Swiss politics are fairly dull and I won't be able to vote until I'm a citizen which won't be a fast process
Having just read J. M Trow's Richard 111 and the North I set up a tour of the three castles locally involved - Sandal, Pontefract, and Conisbrough. Sandal was easy to find, free car park on site, cafe available, clear information boards, but not much to see. Pontefract more difficult to find, free car park some distance away, more remains but cafe not open. Conisbrough best preserved but car park privatised and needed to download app to park. Gave up. Sandal and Pontefract local authority run, Conisbrough English Heritage - nuff said.
You would normally be able to find somewhere else to park locally although I'd have to agree about English Heritage. It is definitely worth a visit despite that. Walter Scott certainly seemed to think so...
Yeah it's something that I'm really glad we managed to pull off. Every fibre of my being wants to stay in the UK but ultimately I know this is the right move for both of us and our eventual family. My parents are about to finalise buying a villa in Crete so they're not going to be in the UK for 5-7 months of the year and we can go and visit them quite easily in Crete. I think my biggest regret is leaving behind my sister and her family, we're really very close and we see each other almost every other weekend because she lives in North London not particularly far away from us. I hope that in a world of WhatsApp and zoom it won't be as bad.
Belated congratulations and best wishes. I was extremely happy in Switzerland - it was only love of politics that brought me back, as Swiss politics are... not very exciting. One tip for what it's worth - don't only cluster with other UK exiles but dip into the local culture too. It might be better or worse but it's interestingly different, and the Brits who hang about in the English-speaking club playing bingo and making jokes about the Swiss are just missing out for no good reason. Will be interested to hear what you make of it.
Thanks, my German is a bit rubbish but on the other hand my Italian is pretty good now. Not sure how useful it will be in Zurich though. Might try and find the Italian speaking Swiss people in Zurich and make friends with them. Last time I lived out there I hung around mostly with people from work which was a mistake in retrospect as you never really get away from them. My wife has a fairly well established network in Zurich but I'll be starting from scratch so appreciate the advice!
Learn German. Well. Very, very well. Make a genuine effort to integrate. Avoid English-language media and environments, especially in the early years. Do not send your children to English/“international” cult schools. Swiss schools only.
I just really loathe the language but it's on the list of things to do. I was actually being fairly serious about finding the Italian speaking people in Zurich, my Italian is pretty good, I'm not fluent but could probably live in Italy (or Lugano) without too many people realising I'm not a native.
On education, it's one of the primary motivators to move to Switzerland. The education system for primary and secondary is, IMO, world class. My wife got such a broader education than I did and the attitude to achievement and expectations in Switzerland is much better than what I experienced vs what she experienced.
Your experience is going to be profoundly unhappy if your first sentence is remotely true. How anyone can “really loathe” a language is way, way beyond my comprehension. It’s like saying you really loathe the colour green, but are quite keen on botany and arboriculture. Bonkers.
Good luck anyway, but if you want to live in Ticino, move to Ticino, not Zürich.
This has been one of the poorest discussion threads on PB for a while. Rather than current mid term polls in tricky period for government being meaningless, they are an excellent long term guide of what is likely to happen at next GE. If polling is as bad for Labour now as it is this week, you’d have to be McCawber to think there is anything that can get the electorate to accept Starmer as PM. If he fails to gain 45+ seats he is toast, his party won’t give him a second chance, and on mid term polling he isn’t getting anywhere near gaining 40 seats. Labour elected a remainer dud.
It’s Red Brex. Lifelong Labour voters sticking with the Tory party in key urban and metropolitan constituencies, don’t over preoccupy on the north, it’s solidly Tory midlands Labour are not making roads into as the next GE results get read out.
Betting wise, any money placed on Starmer as next PM is straight down the drain, Red Brex are telling you this today, how they are answering every poll question. On who would make best PM Starmer is going backwards in mid term protest polls.
even three months ago the Tories were 20 points ahead. .
Total lie CHB where do you get that from.
Absolutely bad response from CBH. I’m pointing to Red Brex sticking with the Tories as being the key voting group in the coming years as it’s clearly not unwinding at all, and sort of baffled by the response I’m getting to that. But unlike many of the others who can’t get their heads round the screaming obvious, you understand Big John because you are Red Brex, and conflicted about the Starmer Project?
Or maybe I am bad, because so many posters like polling night to play with the seat calcs and chance to discuss fantasy politics, this coalition v that black swan = this particular policy compromise, but I came in with the obvious and boring facts about current polling and spoilt the fun?
This has been one of the poorest discussion threads on PB for a while. Rather than current mid term polls in tricky period for government being meaningless, they are an excellent long term guide of what is likely to happen at next GE. If polling is as bad for Labour now as it is this week, you’d have to be McCawber to think there is anything that can get the electorate to accept Starmer as PM. If he fails to gain 45+ seats he is toast, his party won’t give him a second chance, and on mid term polling he isn’t getting anywhere near gaining 40 seats. Labour elected a remainer dud.
It’s Red Brex. Lifelong Labour voters sticking with the Tory party in key urban and metropolitan constituencies, don’t over preoccupy on the north, it’s solidly Tory midlands Labour are not making roads into as the next GE results get read out.
Betting wise, any money placed on Starmer as next PM is straight down the drain, Red Brex are telling you this today, how they are answering every poll question. On who would make best PM Starmer is going backwards in mid term protest polls.
even three months ago the Tories were 20 points ahead. .
Total lie CHB where do you get that from.
Absolutely bad response from CBH. I’m pointing to Red Brex sticking with the Tories as being the key voting group in the coming years as it’s clearly not unwinding at all, and sort of baffled by the response I’m getting to that. But unlike many of the others who can’t get their heads round the screaming obvious, you understand Big John because you are Red Brex, and conflicted about the Starmer Project?
Or maybe I am bad, because so many posters like polling night to play with the seat calcs and chance to discuss fantasy politics, this coalition v that black swan = this particular policy compromise, but I came in with the obvious and boring facts about current polling and spoilt the fun?
Comments
The benefits system is incredibly complex in the UK, and while some benefits (JSA) are dependent on seeing work, that is supplemented by Housing Benefit and various means tested things.
The average house in Oslo costs 5.7 million kroner ie about £476,000, significantly more expensive than the average Edinburgh property and home ownership is higher in Oslo than London
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049493/average-price-residential-property-in-norway-by-city/#:~:text=Oslo was the Norwegian city,kroner as of February 2021.
Politicians mislead. They always have done and always will do.
Btw your original claim was “ignorant” not “inaccurate”. This was not ignorant
Red 99
Blue 69
86.2% counted
Workers Party heading for victory
Change from GE 2017
R
4,57 %
+2,1
SV
7,27 %
+1,2
Ap
26,32 %
–1,0
Sp
13,90 %
+3,6
MDG
3,72 %
+0,5
KrF
3,99 %
–0,2
V
4,15 %
–0,2
H
20,43 %
–4,6
Frp
11,98 %
–3,2
Others
3,67 %
+2,0
Sometimes I wonder if you are a sentient specimen.
Viewed from right now it looks close to a zero% chance, but allowance must be made for black swans - however a 13% chance is ludicrous. 48%/48%/4% is more like it.
I support a more contributory unemployment benefits system but would still provide a basic minimum
NOM is often priced way too short. I remember Antifrank losing a packet on NOM during one electoral cycle.
Do you think leaving the EU will have influenced things?
If we'd had that benefits system the UK would have voted to remain in the EU.
Of course, the fact that our house is one episode (albeit only for about two seconds) is another bonus.
Losing your Mother is a devastating event in your life
Hence in UK general elections it does not vote Tory, in UK terms it is not that wealthy an area
And best wishes to your wife too, sending good luck
(this is what you're like)
Christian Democrats (blue): 3.95%
Greens (red): 3.76%
This is a bigger blow to the blue bloc than the red, as the Christian Democrats had 8 legislators whereas the Greens only had one.
(this is going to become a regular feature)
It’s Red Brex. Lifelong Labour voters sticking with the Tory party in key urban and metropolitan constituencies, don’t over preoccupy on the north, it’s solidly Tory midlands Labour are not making roads into as the next GE results get read out.
Betting wise, any money placed on Starmer as next PM is straight down the drain, Red Brex are telling you this today, how they are answering every poll question. On who would make best PM Starmer is going backwards in mid term protest polls.
They lost in a landslide and even three months ago the Tories were 20 points ahead. Labour is clearly going in the right direction.
I personally believe the next election is likely to be 2010 in reverse, the polls leading up to 2010 were never a massive lead one way or the other.
There is an interesting case to be made that stagnant productivity is a feature of late economic development.
Vollrath wrote an interesting book featuring this idea.
4,66 %
+2,2
SV (socialist left)
7,41 %
+1,4
Ap (workers)
26,34 %
–1,0
Sp (centre party)
13,72 %
+3,5
MDG (greens)
3,79 %
+0,5
KrF (christian dem)
3,92 %
–0,3
V (liberals)
4,29 %
–0,1
H (conservatives)
20,38 %
–4,7
Frp (populist right)
11,84 %
–3,3
A more contributory benefits system may have helped but it was the downward pressure on wages and competition for low skilled jobs working class Leavers were voting against
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/28/boris-johnson-mother-charlotte-johnson-wahl-paintings_n_8210450.html
Are there any Labour members on tonight. How do you feel about Starmer being rid of the liability of Rayner using this mechanism, and say, nominating Reeves to fill in for him instead?
You can’t possibly argue against Starmer doing this surely?
Hopefully you will be allowed access to PB to update us on the politics of the cantons.
Clear victory for the Red bloc.
Christian Democrats leave the Storting.
Greens fail to enter the Storting.
Reds enter the Storting.
Both big parties lose vote share: Workers down 1 point; Conservatives down 5 points.
Biggest winners: Centre Party, up 3.4 points.
(95% of votes counted)
On education, it's one of the primary motivators to move to Switzerland. The education system for primary and secondary is, IMO, world class. My wife got such a broader education than I did and the attitude to achievement and expectations in Switzerland is much better than what I experienced vs what she experienced.
But as a cause of Brexit? To a point but a lot of red wall and seaside towns were economically harmed before notable immigration.
In May 1992, the average of the polls was about C44L36, a Conservative lead of 8 points or so.
By early September 1992, that had closed to roughly C40L40.
The funny thing is that the polls started to close before John Smith became leader, and well before Black Wednesday. In fact, the funniest thing is that Black Wednesday didn't really show up in the trends- there was no Conservative collapse, no Labour surge, just a continuation of the same smooth decay that had already started. Sure, crossover happened in September, but that was already written in the stars, so to speak. What did for Major was a combination of how low that gradual fall took him and how hard it was to pick up afterwards.
(Have a look here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election)
PB wasn't around in 1992, but it's easy to imagine people looking at the late September polling and being intensely relaxed about how Black Wednesday hadn't really cut though etc...
Fast-forward to now.
In May 2019, the average of the polls was about C43L32 and by the start of this month that had closed to about C39L34. So Johnson's Conservatives are doing about as well as Major's Conservatives and Starmer's Labour is doing noticeably worse than Smith's Labour. How much that is just because Scottish voters have decided to play their own games instead, I don't know.
Trends don't last forever. But the current trend is not in the Conservatives' favour and a prolonged gradual decline adds up to a lot.
Good luck anyway, but if you want to live in Ticino, move to Ticino, not Zürich.
Or maybe I am bad, because so many posters like polling night to play with the seat calcs and chance to discuss fantasy politics, this coalition v that black swan = this particular policy compromise, but I came in with the obvious and boring facts about current polling and spoilt the fun?
Sorry.
Love this guy