Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.
If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?
Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.
Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.
UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
All of which is correct. But what do you practically do about it?
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Or else what?
Well, they have a lovely large tourist industry - relative to their size - which sells the Faroes as this amazing, unspoiled, Edenic destination. Shame if something ever happened to that industry, like a worldwide boycott ensuring its collapse
You seem to be saying that I shouldn't be allowed to go to the Faroes because you don't approve of something some people have been allowed to do. Hope I have misunderstood that.
As I said to Taz, please ignore me. But look at the photos I linked, and decide for yourself
Personally, I’ve always wanted to visit the Faroes. They are meant to be amazing. But I won’t go now, not unless they stop this shit. Personal choice, is all
Other countries do it as well, of course. Inc Japan.
See below for gut-wrenching mass slaughter of the magnificent and beautiful tuna:
I only ever eat sustainable fish, if at all possible (sometimes abroad it’s not possible to know)
The industrialized fishing of tuna is grisly, but at least the tuna are eaten. And the noble tuna is not a highly intelligent mammal like the dolphin
The pointless slaughter of 1400 dolphins for no other reason than sadistic pleasure is in a different and darker moral place
Tuna, as a species, is far more threatened than dolphins are. But I agree that slaughtering a wild mammal seems even more grisly to us than slaughtering a fish.
Loss of biodiversity is the most worrying environmental threat for me, it makes one wonder how much degradation it will take before our species stops. A rhetorical question because it never will.
Yes. Loss of biodiversity is a bleak and depressing thing. I’m a big fan of rewilding
Incidentally, last week in Lucerne I saw a sign saying ‘look out for beavers!’ - in the middle of the city
My guide explained they were reintroduced years back, and ‘now we have so many they are a problem’. But that’s a better problem than having no beavers at all
That depends on what the beavers do to everything else.
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
People like Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and Joanna Cherry?
Look on it as analagous to being anti-EU. There are decent people who are anti-EU and there is the Nigel Farage wing.
Not that that would apply to you because you are a dyed-in-the-wool europhile.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
(snip)
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I said: I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
People like Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and Joanna Cherry?
Look on it as analagous to being anti-EU. There are decent people who are anti-EU and there is the Nigel Farage wing.
Not that that would apply to you because you are a dyed-in-the-wool europhile.
There are however, some truly horrible people on the other side. People who send death threats, call for Rowling to be raped etc.
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
People like Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and Joanna Cherry?
Look on it as analagous to being anti-EU. There are decent people who are anti-EU and there is the Nigel Farage wing.
Not that that would apply to you because you are a dyed-in-the-wool europhile.
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
People like Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and Joanna Cherry?
Look on it as analagous to being anti-EU. There are decent people who are anti-EU and there is the Nigel Farage wing.
Not that that would apply to you because you are a dyed-in-the-wool europhile.
It's a good analogy because the remain side in that argument thought they were saints and anyone who disagreed with them were stupid, evil or bigoted, usually all three.
What we have here is men in dresses telling women they can't have women only spaces and lesbians are bigots for not wanting suck their dicks. The idea that sex and gender are the same thing is completely and utterly ridiculous, yet here we are.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
I tend not to get involved with this argument, partly because I’m a cis het norm male - and also because the argument is so complex - and vicious. Truly nasty
But FWIW I know plenty of women - mainly on the left, some on the right - who completely agree with Cyclefree. Word for word
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
People like Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and Joanna Cherry?
Look on it as analagous to being anti-EU. There are decent people who are anti-EU and there is the Nigel Farage wing.
Not that that would apply to you because you are a dyed-in-the-wool europhile.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Your third para I've always found a striking point, and an example of us going backwards in recent years on stereotypes.
Yes, I agree. The implication appears to be that there excatly two 'ways to be'- like a boy, or like a girl. Which is wrong in so many ways. Can we not just accept our bodies as they are?
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
(snip)
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I said: I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
Totally agree. Women have the right to feel safe, as well as be safe.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
It's very male by poster ratio.
Right. As far as you are aware. Is @kle4 a particularly male or female posting name?
But yes I can believe it.
I believe what people say about themselves and of those who care to mention it most are male, I don't think that's controversial.
As somewhere full of political wonks its also got lots interested in other nerdy pursuits.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.
If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?
Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.
Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.
UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
All of which is correct. But what do you practically do about it?
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
With PAYE and Real Time Information reporting to HMRC there's no reason for massive form filling any more than there is form filling already today for the self employed and others that fill in Self Assessment forms.
I would abolish all means tested benefits and give UC to everybody in the entire country. From the unemployed, to part time, through to doctors, MPs, lawyers and Marcus Rashford etc. And then set unified tax rates at the appropriate rate.
For anyone on PAYE reported via RTI the UC amount just becomes a part of their tax code like how a tax free allowance operates today. If net they owe taxes then the UC amount just reduces taxes like how tax free allowances already operate.
Then have clean, simple unified tax rates than IMHO should never exceed 50% for anyone. Which as well as getting rid of the 75% tax rates for the poorest would get rid of the 60% abberation that the withdrawal of the tax free allowance causes etc.
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
People like Germaine Greer, JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and Joanna Cherry?
Look on it as analagous to being anti-EU. There are decent people who are anti-EU and there is the Nigel Farage wing.
Not that that would apply to you because you are a dyed-in-the-wool europhile.
There are however, some truly horrible people on the other side. People who send death threats, call for Rowling to be raped etc.
Indeed, and the claims of the far right/political correctness gone made brigade being anti trans is an argument made by TRA’s and their fellow travellers to simply demonise their opposition. In the meantime this is the reality of what gender critical feminists face from these people.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
I tend not to get involved with this argument, partly because I’m a cis het norm male - and also because the argument is so complex - and vicious. Truly nasty
But FWIW I know plenty of women - mainly on the left, some on the right - who completely agree with Cyclefree. Word for word
Absolutely. And same here I will not make a comment about it one way or another on PB (or IRL). Why my sister spits feathers about it.
I am just explaining why someone involved "on the other side" believes it is important to state the trans case although they realise that the sports issue is probably where this will be fought out as the prison/changing room element might not catch the public's attention.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
I tend not to get involved with this argument, partly because I’m a cis het norm male - and also because the argument is so complex - and vicious. Truly nasty
But FWIW I know plenty of women - mainly on the left, some on the right - who completely agree with Cyclefree. Word for word
Yup my wife has echoed the same sentiments as Cyclefree on many occasions and she's not particularly political. Her issue is, and has always been, female only spaces being opened up to males. Changing rooms and bathrooms in particular as she knows it's her own safety under threat but also prisons, refuges, shelters and other female only spaces now letting on self-ID men who say they're not.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
How long before it's all back to one State supplier?
I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
When prices are regulated, and the service is all the same, what is the point of "competition"?
All hail Jeremy Corbyn.
We are about to be even deeper into Labours 2019 manifesto especially after the reshuffle where Boris surrounds himself with fellow Socialists!!
But Labour is currently doing better than under Gaitskell in mid-1961 - and under Kinnock at the beginning of 1989. Not so very different to how the Tories fared under Thatcher in late 1977 and most of 1978.
How long before it's all back to one State supplier?
I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
I think there are three aspects to the electrical power economy: 1) Generation. 2) Nationwide distribution 3) Supply to market
Generation can be made from a whole host of sources; traditionally coal, but now nuclear, gas, wind, solar and interconnector. There are so many that competition and innovation can be rife, and it seems sensible to be in the private sector - albeit with subsidies for some.
The distribution is via the National Grid. This is an area where innovation is generally slow, and competition very difficult to put in place.
The supply to market is done via a series of companies, some very prone to rises in the wholesale prices. Competition is rife, but room for innovation is relatively low.
This is all made more complex by some companies having fingers in both the generation and supply markets, with distribution done via the NG.
(Someone will doubtless correct me if this is wrong...)
So the way I see it, generation should remain private. Distribution could be private or state-owned; I don't think it makes much of a difference. The supply to market at the moment is messy, and I don't think people as a whole benefit from the current structure. It needs a drastic restructuring - either nationalisation or something else.
But sadly I don't see much of anything we do actually decreasing prices by any significant margin.
I've always been puzzled by what exactly a different supplier brings to me as a domestic customer. Snazzier logo on the bill? Otherwise it's the same electricity from the same generator brought to me down the same wire from the same grid as I had yesterday.
It is right that generation should be private (lots of opportunities for competition) but the rest? Surely a single infrastructure operator from that point on is all we need, who can choose to contract out any or all of their activities in the most cost-effective way. And surely they are more likely to identify the most efficient billing/meter reading supplier than I am?
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
I tend not to get involved with this argument, partly because I’m a cis het norm male - and also because the argument is so complex - and vicious. Truly nasty
But FWIW I know plenty of women - mainly on the left, some on the right - who completely agree with Cyclefree. Word for word
Yup my wife has echoed the same sentiments as Cyclefree on many occasions and she's not particularly political. Her issue is, and has always been, female only spaces being opened up to males. Changing rooms and bathrooms in particular as she knows it's her own safety under threat but also prisons, refuges, shelters and other female only spaces now letting on self-ID men who say they're not.
I have mentioned this before on here, among Mrs U female friends, generally very highly educated, successful, soft left leaning, very liberal on basically every social issue, and I imagine what only a few years ago most would say are your average stereotypical feminist...but this is absolute catnip topic....
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
It's very male by poster ratio.
Right. As far as you are aware. Is @kle4 a particularly male or female posting name?
But yes I can believe it.
It's worth noting that when people have done mock Cabinets using posters here, or mock TV panelists for a GB News style channel etc that they've frequently been 100% male. Or had Cyclefree named as token female.
OTTOMH, I can't think of any other regular female posters who are active currently. I suppose women are just less likely than men to want to spend hours on highly pedantic arguments, arcane bits of detail, in-jokes and classical references. EDIT: Oh, and - given the site's ostensible purpose - discussing politics in a highly quantified and probability-based way.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
I was going to tweet that no cabinet could be worse than the current one, but if the last decade has taught me anything, it is that every time I think we’ve hit rock bottom, a hitherto unseen trapdoor opens, to some new and more unimaginably awful circle of hell. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1438128022171918337
How long before it's all back to one State supplier?
I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
I think there are three aspects to the electrical power economy: 1) Generation. 2) Nationwide distribution 3) Supply to market
Generation can be made from a whole host of sources; traditionally coal, but now nuclear, gas, wind, solar and interconnector. There are so many that competition and innovation can be rife, and it seems sensible to be in the private sector - albeit with subsidies for some.
The distribution is via the National Grid. This is an area where innovation is generally slow, and competition very difficult to put in place.
The supply to market is done via a series of companies, some very prone to rises in the wholesale prices. Competition is rife, but room for innovation is relatively low.
This is all made more complex by some companies having fingers in both the generation and supply markets, with distribution done via the NG.
(Someone will doubtless correct me if this is wrong...)
So the way I see it, generation should remain private. Distribution could be private or state-owned; I don't think it makes much of a difference. The supply to market at the moment is messy, and I don't think people as a whole benefit from the current structure. It needs a drastic restructuring - either nationalisation or something else.
But sadly I don't see much of anything we do actually decreasing prices by any significant margin.
I've always been puzzled by what exactly a different supplier brings to me as a domestic customer. Snazzier logo on the bill? Otherwise it's the same electricity from the same generator brought to me down the same wire from the same grid as I had yesterday.
It is right that generation should be private (lots of opportunities for competition) but the rest? Surely a single infrastructure operator from that point on is all we need, who can choose to contract out any or all of their activities in the most cost-effective way. And surely they are more likely to identify the most efficient billing/meter reading supplier than I am?
Not sure about that. It's not just competitiveness that counts here: energy is a strategic resource that impacts on public heath, defence, all sorts. Those things need at the very least a level of public oversight.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.
If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?
Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.
Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.
UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
All of which is correct. But what do you practically do about it?
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
With PAYE and Real Time Information reporting to HMRC there's no reason for massive form filling any more than there is form filling already today for the self employed and others that fill in Self Assessment forms.
I would abolish all means tested benefits and give UC to everybody in the entire country. From the unemployed, to part time, through to doctors, MPs, lawyers and Marcus Rashford etc. And then set unified tax rates at the appropriate rate.
For anyone on PAYE reported via RTI the UC amount just becomes a part of their tax code like how a tax free allowance operates today. If net they owe taxes then the UC amount just reduces taxes like how tax free allowances already operate.
Then have clean, simple unified tax rates than IMHO should never exceed 50% for anyone. Which as well as getting rid of the 75% tax rates for the poorest would get rid of the 60% abberation that the withdrawal of the tax free allowance causes etc.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.
If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?
Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.
Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.
UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
All of which is correct. But what do you practically do about it?
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
With PAYE and Real Time Information reporting to HMRC there's no reason for massive form filling any more than there is form filling already today for the self employed and others that fill in Self Assessment forms.
I would abolish all means tested benefits and give UC to everybody in the entire country. From the unemployed, to part time, through to doctors, MPs, lawyers and Marcus Rashford etc. And then set unified tax rates at the appropriate rate.
For anyone on PAYE reported via RTI the UC amount just becomes a part of their tax code like how a tax free allowance operates today. If net they owe taxes then the UC amount just reduces taxes like how tax free allowances already operate.
Then have clean, simple unified tax rates than IMHO should never exceed 50% for anyone. Which as well as getting rid of the 75% tax rates for the poorest would get rid of the 60% abberation that the withdrawal of the tax free allowance causes etc.
That's a UBI, isn't it?
Yes.
AKA a Negative Income Tax as proposed by Milton Friedman.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
Indeed. Perhaps that makes me a bigot these days, and bedfellows with some unpleasant folks (as is the case with lots of issues) but I just have problems with certain positions pushed impinging on the rights of others, and the pro side dont seem to think there's even a debate about competing rights, that it's a binary decision are you with us or against us. I think it's more complex.
@Peston With @MattHancock forced out a few weeks ago and Robert Buckland sacked today, @OliverDowden may be the last member of the cabinet who campaigned against Brexit
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
How long before it's all back to one State supplier?
I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
I think there are three aspects to the electrical power economy: 1) Generation. 2) Nationwide distribution 3) Supply to market
Generation can be made from a whole host of sources; traditionally coal, but now nuclear, gas, wind, solar and interconnector. There are so many that competition and innovation can be rife, and it seems sensible to be in the private sector - albeit with subsidies for some.
The distribution is via the National Grid. This is an area where innovation is generally slow, and competition very difficult to put in place.
The supply to market is done via a series of companies, some very prone to rises in the wholesale prices. Competition is rife, but room for innovation is relatively low.
This is all made more complex by some companies having fingers in both the generation and supply markets, with distribution done via the NG.
(Someone will doubtless correct me if this is wrong...)
So the way I see it, generation should remain private. Distribution could be private or state-owned; I don't think it makes much of a difference. The supply to market at the moment is messy, and I don't think people as a whole benefit from the current structure. It needs a drastic restructuring - either nationalisation or something else.
But sadly I don't see much of anything we do actually decreasing prices by any significant margin.
I've always been puzzled by what exactly a different supplier brings to me as a domestic customer. Snazzier logo on the bill? Otherwise it's the same electricity from the same generator brought to me down the same wire from the same grid as I had yesterday.
It is right that generation should be private (lots of opportunities for competition) but the rest? Surely a single infrastructure operator from that point on is all we need, who can choose to contract out any or all of their activities in the most cost-effective way. And surely they are more likely to identify the most efficient billing/meter reading supplier than I am?
Not sure about that. It's not just competitiveness that counts here: energy is a strategic resource that impacts on public heath, defence, all sorts. Those things need at the very least a level of public oversight.
Almost all private industries - from construction to restaurants - have healthy levels of public oversight.
@Peston With @MattHancock forced out a few weeks ago and Robert Buckland sacked today, @OliverDowden may be the last member of the cabinet who campaigned against Brexit
@Peston With @MattHancock forced out a few weeks ago and Robert Buckland sacked today, @OliverDowden may be the last member of the cabinet who campaigned against Brexit
Javid was a remainer.
Truss took part in one of the debates on the Remain side didn't she?
@Peston With @MattHancock forced out a few weeks ago and Robert Buckland sacked today, @OliverDowden may be the last member of the cabinet who campaigned against Brexit
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.
If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?
Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.
Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.
UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
All of which is correct. But what do you practically do about it?
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
With PAYE and Real Time Information reporting to HMRC there's no reason for massive form filling any more than there is form filling already today for the self employed and others that fill in Self Assessment forms.
I would abolish all means tested benefits and give UC to everybody in the entire country. From the unemployed, to part time, through to doctors, MPs, lawyers and Marcus Rashford etc. And then set unified tax rates at the appropriate rate.
For anyone on PAYE reported via RTI the UC amount just becomes a part of their tax code like how a tax free allowance operates today. If net they owe taxes then the UC amount just reduces taxes like how tax free allowances already operate.
Then have clean, simple unified tax rates than IMHO should never exceed 50% for anyone. Which as well as getting rid of the 75% tax rates for the poorest would get rid of the 60% abberation that the withdrawal of the tax free allowance causes etc.
Okay, so you’re talking about what’s usually described as universal basic income. How much should this be, and should it be the same in London as in the north of England?
(Hint, you can like comfortably in the north of england for an amount that doesn’t come close to making rent in London).
FWIW, i agree on the principle, but find the practicalities incredibly difficult to resolve. It’s currently massively complicated, and any losers from a change in policy will be rather vocal about it.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.
If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?
Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.
Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.
UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
All of which is correct. But what do you practically do about it?
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
With PAYE and Real Time Information reporting to HMRC there's no reason for massive form filling any more than there is form filling already today for the self employed and others that fill in Self Assessment forms.
I would abolish all means tested benefits and give UC to everybody in the entire country. From the unemployed, to part time, through to doctors, MPs, lawyers and Marcus Rashford etc. And then set unified tax rates at the appropriate rate.
For anyone on PAYE reported via RTI the UC amount just becomes a part of their tax code like how a tax free allowance operates today. If net they owe taxes then the UC amount just reduces taxes like how tax free allowances already operate.
Then have clean, simple unified tax rates than IMHO should never exceed 50% for anyone. Which as well as getting rid of the 75% tax rates for the poorest would get rid of the 60% abberation that the withdrawal of the tax free allowance causes etc.
That's a UBI, isn't it?
Yes.
AKA a Negative Income Tax as proposed by Milton Friedman.
I've been in favour of a UBI for a long time. And it is, of course, Lib Dem policy.
‘So my unvaccinated friend died in a ventilator at 330am today - extremely sad - but what is interesting is all the anti vaxxers accusing me of lying or somehow trying to scare people. I blocked most of them - but of course that leaves them in their own happy echo chamber. Ends.’
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Not 100% sure what makes this a very male forum. Is an appreciation of good wine, food and the pre-Boris Conservatives particularly male?
But someone who is involved in this debate if there are sides then on the "trans" side (awful categorisation apols) said that one of the reasons that "trans rights" is important is because those opposed "anti-trans" are quite often on the generally bigoted, political correctness gone mad, white lives matter, men get raped too, er, male end of the political spectrum.
The veneer might be to rail against male to female MMA contestants but there is often a deeper and more sinister world view beneath.
I tend not to get involved with this argument, partly because I’m a cis het norm male - and also because the argument is so complex - and vicious. Truly nasty
But FWIW I know plenty of women - mainly on the left, some on the right - who completely agree with Cyclefree. Word for word
Yup my wife has echoed the same sentiments as Cyclefree on many occasions and she's not particularly political. Her issue is, and has always been, female only spaces being opened up to males. Changing rooms and bathrooms in particular as she knows it's her own safety under threat but also prisons, refuges, shelters and other female only spaces now letting on self-ID men who say they're not.
I have mentioned this before on here, among Mrs U female friends, generally very highly educated, successful, soft left leaning, very liberal on basically every social issue, and I imagine what only a few years ago most would say are your average stereotypical feminist...but this is absolute catnip topic....
In the sense of they all hold similar views to those of Cyclefree? Or in that they all have a view one way or the other?
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
I think you meant they do face real issues there.
And I think those external to a group on question, which won't have a homogenous view, still have a voice, we dont subcontractor our views to campaigners, pro or against.
The issue I have is trans persons will still face very real issues, but that doesnt mean anything a trans group proposes is a solution to that, if it impacts on others. At the least it needs very careful debate, and this issue is toxic with those who think the options are binary.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
@Peston With @MattHancock forced out a few weeks ago and Robert Buckland sacked today, @OliverDowden may be the last member of the cabinet who campaigned against Brexit
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
How long before it's all back to one State supplier?
I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
I think there are three aspects to the electrical power economy: 1) Generation. 2) Nationwide distribution 3) Supply to market
Generation can be made from a whole host of sources; traditionally coal, but now nuclear, gas, wind, solar and interconnector. There are so many that competition and innovation can be rife, and it seems sensible to be in the private sector - albeit with subsidies for some.
The distribution is via the National Grid. This is an area where innovation is generally slow, and competition very difficult to put in place.
The supply to market is done via a series of companies, some very prone to rises in the wholesale prices. Competition is rife, but room for innovation is relatively low.
This is all made more complex by some companies having fingers in both the generation and supply markets, with distribution done via the NG.
(Someone will doubtless correct me if this is wrong...)
So the way I see it, generation should remain private. Distribution could be private or state-owned; I don't think it makes much of a difference. The supply to market at the moment is messy, and I don't think people as a whole benefit from the current structure. It needs a drastic restructuring - either nationalisation or something else.
But sadly I don't see much of anything we do actually decreasing prices by any significant margin.
Just switched to SSE 2 Year Fix v8, the gas (4.074/kwh & 26.765 ppday) and electric (20.58/kwh & 27.489 ppday) are ever so slightly more than I'm paying from Oct 1st ( (+0.094 ppkwh gas, +.165 ppday // +.5 ppkwh & +.669 ppday) - but the rises in Scottish Powers fixed tariffs are eye watering, gas on the Scottish Fixed at 5.54p /kwh - Which gives an indication of what is coming down the line if people leave it I expect, at any rate the fix pays for itself in the second year even with a modest hike in the standard tarriff.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
Indeed. Perhaps that makes me a bigot these days, and bedfellows with some unpleasant folks (as is the case with lots of issues) but I just have problems with certain positions pushed impinging on the rights of others, and the pro side dont seem to think there's even a debate about competing rights, that it's a binary decision are you with us or against us. I think it's more complex.
Very complex. I have trans friends, I get the perspective
What I don’t understand is the horrible aggression. The murderous hatred for, say, J K Rowling
Where does it come from? Trans rights is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of life, but somehow it has become this boiling cauldron of bile, where people feel justified in making death threats
I genuinely don’t understand it (another reason I avoid it)
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
The whole effect of these benefits is it traps people claiming them into thinking its not worth working any more or not worth seeking a promotion and a pay rise because they don't get any extra money as they lose their benefits if they do.
If you think a 75% tax rate is the appropriate thing to do for the poorest then why don't we have a 75% tax rate for middle earners or the richest?
Its inappropriate to tax anyone over 50% of their marginal income. Let alone 75%.
Agree it is clearly and obviously inappropriate so wonder if there is something that justifies it to the treasury that we are missing and they can't make explicit.
Perhaps it is a big help in keeping unemployment down by in effect rationing the number of hours the lower paid work to share those jobs around more people. Or perhaps it is just an anomaly they can't be bothered to fix.
Brown completely screwed the tax system with "Tax Credits". As an employer the amount of time I've had people say to me in interviews or if I've offered them extra shifts in the past "I can't work more than 16 hours per week" sometimes followed by "the JobCentre won't let me" is absurd. Having good employees "only" allowed to work 16 or 21 or whatever hours per week is a pathetically stupid way to run the country.
UC made it a bit better, but now the NI tax rise is going in the wrong direction making it even worse not better than it is now.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a Laffer effect in taxing people 75% marginal tax rates is absolutely delusional.
All of which is correct. But what do you practically do about it?
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
With PAYE and Real Time Information reporting to HMRC there's no reason for massive form filling any more than there is form filling already today for the self employed and others that fill in Self Assessment forms.
I would abolish all means tested benefits and give UC to everybody in the entire country. From the unemployed, to part time, through to doctors, MPs, lawyers and Marcus Rashford etc. And then set unified tax rates at the appropriate rate.
For anyone on PAYE reported via RTI the UC amount just becomes a part of their tax code like how a tax free allowance operates today. If net they owe taxes then the UC amount just reduces taxes like how tax free allowances already operate.
Then have clean, simple unified tax rates than IMHO should never exceed 50% for anyone. Which as well as getting rid of the 75% tax rates for the poorest would get rid of the 60% abberation that the withdrawal of the tax free allowance causes etc.
Okay, so you’re talking about what’s usually described as universal basic income. How much should this be, and should it be the same in London as in the north of England?
(Hint, you can like comfortably in the north of england for an amount that doesn’t come close to making rent in London).
FWIW, i agree on the principle, but find the practicalities incredibly difficult to resolve. It’s currently massively complicated, and any losers from a change in policy will be rather vocal about it.
I've always used the term Negative Income Tax but yes a UBI is an extremely similar concept. So long as its truly universal and has no taper, as if it does its just welfare and not universal.
I'd get rid of all housing and any other benefits with this and I expect there'd be some correction to the rents charged as a result. And it might see some people deciding to move around the country as a result but that would ease pressures where its a problem.
Plus if wages are higher in the South then since people can keep more of what they earn, they can pay their own rents there. Its only for those not working at all that the biggest issues would exist. In which case, they should get a job.
Yes its difficult, but that's what we elect governments for, to tackle the difficult issues.
Got what he wished for, it seems. An XR supporting petrolhead. Most ironic.
I wonder if the fanatics Will say they regret the incident but the govt is to blame as it forced them to action and they regret all,incidents where people get hurt equally.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
Indeed. Perhaps that makes me a bigot these days, and bedfellows with some unpleasant folks (as is the case with lots of issues) but I just have problems with certain positions pushed impinging on the rights of others, and the pro side dont seem to think there's even a debate about competing rights, that it's a binary decision are you with us or against us. I think it's more complex.
Very complex. I have trans friends, I get the perspective
What I don’t understand is the horrible aggression. The murderous hatred for, say, J K Rowling
Where does it come from? Trans rights is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of life, but somehow it has become this boiling cauldron of bile, where people feel justified in making death threats
I genuinely don’t understand it (another reason I avoid it)
I don’t get the claims of trans genocide, the MMA trans person has a t shirt saying end trans genocide. What is this genocide ? Where is it ?
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
Australian rumours that they may junk their French sub deal.....
Great news. Terrible acronym.
AUKUS would work better. Drop the double-u's.
Yes, it would not only be more pronouncable ('Orcus') but more consistent - Australia is a one-word country. We don't need the U. It's not at all unclear which country beginning with A it refers to.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
Indeed. Perhaps that makes me a bigot these days, and bedfellows with some unpleasant folks (as is the case with lots of issues) but I just have problems with certain positions pushed impinging on the rights of others, and the pro side dont seem to think there's even a debate about competing rights, that it's a binary decision are you with us or against us. I think it's more complex.
Very complex. I have trans friends, I get the perspective
What I don’t understand is the horrible aggression. The murderous hatred for, say, J K Rowling
Where does it come from? Trans rights is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of life, but somehow it has become this boiling cauldron of bile, where people feel justified in making death threats
I genuinely don’t understand it (another reason I avoid it)
It's (usually white) men in dresses not getting their way. They aren't used to it because they have always got their way before. Society at large finds the idea of being a woman on Tuesday-Thursday and a man from Friday-Monday ridiculous.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.
"Everyone is born either a male or a female."
Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.
Raab been in there a whole.. pals suggested earlier in the week he had a few things he wanted to get off his chest about being blamed for the Kabul clusterfuck. “Aggrieved” as one ally put it.
How long before it's all back to one State supplier?
I can't see the point of all the private suppliers. Might as well make a British EDF.
I think there are three aspects to the electrical power economy: 1) Generation. 2) Nationwide distribution 3) Supply to market
Generation can be made from a whole host of sources; traditionally coal, but now nuclear, gas, wind, solar and interconnector. There are so many that competition and innovation can be rife, and it seems sensible to be in the private sector - albeit with subsidies for some.
The distribution is via the National Grid. This is an area where innovation is generally slow, and competition very difficult to put in place.
The supply to market is done via a series of companies, some very prone to rises in the wholesale prices. Competition is rife, but room for innovation is relatively low.
This is all made more complex by some companies having fingers in both the generation and supply markets, with distribution done via the NG.
(Someone will doubtless correct me if this is wrong...)
So the way I see it, generation should remain private. Distribution could be private or state-owned; I don't think it makes much of a difference. The supply to market at the moment is messy, and I don't think people as a whole benefit from the current structure. It needs a drastic restructuring - either nationalisation or something else.
But sadly I don't see much of anything we do actually decreasing prices by any significant margin.
I've always been puzzled by what exactly a different supplier brings to me as a domestic customer. Snazzier logo on the bill? Otherwise it's the same electricity from the same generator brought to me down the same wire from the same grid as I had yesterday.
It is right that generation should be private (lots of opportunities for competition) but the rest? Surely a single infrastructure operator from that point on is all we need, who can choose to contract out any or all of their activities in the most cost-effective way. And surely they are more likely to identify the most efficient billing/meter reading supplier than I am?
Not sure about that. It's not just competitiveness that counts here: energy is a strategic resource that impacts on public heath, defence, all sorts. Those things need at the very least a level of public oversight.
Almost all private industries - from construction to restaurants - have healthy levels of public oversight.
True, oversight is too weak a word for what I'm trying to say. Energy providers must be compelled to behave in particular ways that don't apply to restaurants and builders. If a restaurant wants to shut up shop on a whim, that's fine. For an energy generator, it is not fine.
New John Burns-Murdoch (FT) Thread on the PHE Vaccine effectiveness data:
NEW: lots of news recently on waning immunity against infection, but a study has now landed from Public Health England on how vaccines are faring against *severe disease & death*
This chart summarises key findings, but the paper is a real goldmine, so let’s dig into more detail:
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the rights of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Excellent post. I don't think you are bringing a female perspective into it. I think you are bringing rationality into it.
Oddly, many women and feminists disagree with Ms Free's views on this. Including Mrs J. Ms Free does speak from her own perspective, not that of all women or feminists.
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
And yet - in this one particular respect - the world IS neat and tidy. Everyone is born either a male or a female. They may not want to live a stereotypically male or female life, and we should not force them to do so - but biological non-binarism(?) is a fiction.
"Everyone is born either a male or a female."
Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.
President Joe Biden will announce a new working group with Britain and Australia to share advanced technologies in a thinly veiled bid to counter China, a White House official and a Congressional staffer told POLITICO.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
Comments
Decreasing only the withdrawal rate leads to the situation where people on £40k are claiming benefits, as well as being massively more expensive, and half the country filling in forms.
The alternative is a lower monetary starting point for UC payments, which hits those right at the bottom.
It’s easy to say don’t start from here, but the UC system is an awful lot better than the myriad systems it replaced, often with withdrawal rates well over 100%. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the best we can do without spending a lot more.
Not that that would apply to you because you are a dyed-in-the-wool europhile.
This feels rather like transfer deadline day doesn’t it? Only without the talent.
https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1438124192906502144?s=20
Cyclefree said:
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
(snip)
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I said:
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
What we have here is men in dresses telling women they can't have women only spaces and lesbians are bigots for not wanting suck their dicks. The idea that sex and gender are the same thing is completely and utterly ridiculous, yet here we are.
https://twitter.com/DarrenGBNews/status/1438124958757031946?s=20
Might have thought Coffey would know that but apparently not.
https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1438125639672999939
But FWIW I know plenty of women - mainly on the left, some on the right - who completely agree with Cyclefree. Word for word
As somewhere full of political wonks its also got lots interested in other nerdy pursuits.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1438125112453124099?s=19
I would abolish all means tested benefits and give UC to everybody in the entire country. From the unemployed, to part time, through to doctors, MPs, lawyers and Marcus Rashford etc. And then set unified tax rates at the appropriate rate.
For anyone on PAYE reported via RTI the UC amount just becomes a part of their tax code like how a tax free allowance operates today. If net they owe taxes then the UC amount just reduces taxes like how tax free allowances already operate.
Then have clean, simple unified tax rates than IMHO should never exceed 50% for anyone. Which as well as getting rid of the 75% tax rates for the poorest would get rid of the 60% abberation that the withdrawal of the tax free allowance causes etc.
Www.terfisaslur.com
I am just explaining why someone involved "on the other side" believes it is important to state the trans case although they realise that the sports issue is probably where this will be fought out as the prison/changing room element might not catch the public's attention.
The trio, which will be known by the acronym AUUKUS, will make it easier for the nations to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities
One of the people said there will be a nuclear element to the pact in which the U.S. and U.K. share their knowledge of how to maintain nuclear-defense infrastructure.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/15/biden-deal-uk-australia-defense-tech-sharing-511877
Australian rumours that they may junk their French sub deal.....
It is right that generation should be private (lots of opportunities for competition) but the rest? Surely a single infrastructure operator from that point on is all we need, who can choose to contract out any or all of their activities in the most cost-effective way. And surely they are more likely to identify the most efficient billing/meter reading supplier than I am?
I am deeply proud of everything I have achieved. On to the next adventure
https://twitter.com/RobertBuckland/status/1438126691864518663?s=20
I suppose women are just less likely than men to want to spend hours on highly pedantic arguments, arcane bits of detail, in-jokes and classical references.
EDIT: Oh, and - given the site's ostensible purpose - discussing politics in a highly quantified and probability-based way.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1438128022171918337
The problem is not that this forum is too male: it's that we don't have many trans voices. I know we had one openly-trans poster, whom I sadly don't think has posted for a while. (As I recall, his views were not always as I'd expect, which was brilliant.)
I have known trans people, and one - a good friend - committed suicide. I still miss him. I have also directly seen others being bullied sniggered at etc in offices and on the street. This is the other side of the equation that Ms Free always rejects, e.g. when she outhandedly rejects Stonewall's figures. Behaviour that would be socially unacceptable towards gays or lesbians is fine against too many trans people. I have witnessed this first hand over the years.
I am not a 'gender idealist'. It's just that I accept the world is non-binary; and not just in the case of intersex people. The world is not as neat and tidy as some people want. So we can either accept that it is not tidy, or try to force people into pigeonholes. That latter approach is the one used throughout history, and has led to all sorts of pain for individuals who are different. I prefer the former approach.
I have sympathy for some of her points. Growing up is confusing for many people, and encouraging people to convert as children makes me very uneasy. I don't think changing gender should be made easier. The use of chemicals on children - especially pre-puberty - is wrong IMO.
But too many trans people don't face real issues and dangers that the rest of us do not.
I am not trans. I have no inclination to be, and never have. I am also not a woman. So perhaps I should have no voice in the matter. But those are my views.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/15/m25-protest-insulate-britain-block-britains-busiest-motorway/
Dura Ace was calling this morning for the protestors to be more violent. He'll be pleased, I guess?
AKA a Negative Income Tax as proposed by Milton Friedman.
At the time Buckland was furious about the internal market bill so I suspect he's not the man Boris Johnson wants for those policies.
@Peston
With @MattHancock forced out a few weeks ago and Robert Buckland sacked today, @OliverDowden may be the last member of the cabinet who campaigned against Brexit
(Hint, you can like comfortably in the north of england for an amount that doesn’t come close to making rent in London).
FWIW, i agree on the principle, but find the practicalities incredibly difficult to resolve. It’s currently massively complicated, and any losers from a change in policy will be rather vocal about it.
‘So my unvaccinated friend died in a ventilator at 330am today - extremely sad - but what is interesting is all the anti vaxxers accusing me of lying or somehow trying to scare people. I blocked most of them - but of course that leaves them in their own happy echo chamber. Ends.’
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1438064925302304768?s=21
And I think those external to a group on question, which won't have a homogenous view, still have a voice, we dont subcontractor our views to campaigners, pro or against.
The issue I have is trans persons will still face very real issues, but that doesnt mean anything a trans group proposes is a solution to that, if it impacts on others. At the least it needs very careful debate, and this issue is toxic with those who think the options are binary.
Would he accept?
What I don’t understand is the horrible aggression. The murderous hatred for, say, J K Rowling
Where does it come from? Trans rights is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of life, but somehow it has become this boiling cauldron of bile, where people feel justified in making death threats
I genuinely don’t understand it (another reason I avoid it)
I'd get rid of all housing and any other benefits with this and I expect there'd be some correction to the rents charged as a result. And it might see some people deciding to move around the country as a result but that would ease pressures where its a problem.
Plus if wages are higher in the South then since people can keep more of what they earn, they can pay their own rents there. Its only for those not working at all that the biggest issues would exist. In which case, they should get a job.
Yes its difficult, but that's what we elect governments for, to tackle the difficult issues.
I wonder if the fanatics Will say they regret the incident but the govt is to blame as it forced them to action and they regret all,incidents where people get hurt equally.
Whinging about working people paying for Old persons Social Care whilst wanting to put up the latters pensions by 8% paid for by the former
Spot on IMO
I hope Joe Biden is reading this.
Not everyone is born either male or a female. Biologically, there are intersex people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
He’s been in there a very long time …
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1438132077505957900
NEW: lots of news recently on waning immunity against infection, but a study has now landed from Public Health England on how vaccines are faring against *severe disease & death*
This chart summarises key findings, but the paper is a real goldmine, so let’s dig into more detail:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1438100712441974786?s=20