politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Thinking the Unthinkable – how’s this going to be paid for?
Comments
-
It should be illegal in the sense that people are punished for using it, not the way it is now.Philip_Thompson said:
100%eek said:
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
isam makes the mistake of saying "marijuana is bad therefore it should be illegal" rather than explain why it being illegal and unregulated works when it so self-evidently doesn't. Prohibition has failed and moonshine alcohol was not safer or better than legal regulated alcohol.0 -
OK, your claim it is doubtful that they have realised it. Would a government that has not realised it already be talking about a new strategy to increase domestic production?another_richard said:
I didn't claim anything I said it was doubtful and it is doubtful.RobD said:
Yeah, but your claim is that the government have yet to realise it. It's easy to see that they have.another_richard said:
And the result will be whether we see new PPE factories being opened in the coming months.RobD said:
We've been through this before.another_richard said:
Which is why we need to increase our own capacity to manufacture PPE, medical equipment etc.FrancisUrquhart said:Chinese flogging dangerous shit again...
Chinese ventilators that ministers heralded as vital to the NHS’s efforts to tackle Covid-19 were badly built, unsuitable for use in hospitals and potentially dangerous for patients, it has emerged.
A well-placed NHS source said the incident highlighted problems that had occurred with a range of medical supplies and equipment ordered from China during the coronavirus pandemic.
“Some other stuff ordered from China recently, especially personal protective equipment, has also turned out to be either of a lesser quality than what we need or to be the wrong thing altogether, like T-shirts instead of long-sleeved surgical gowns” they said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/30/entire-order-of-250-chinese-ventilators-were-useless-despite
Just taking the piss. Flog the west any old shit, because they will be too busy to worry about any come back.
Whether the government realises that is doubtful.
If its not then perhaps you could tell us when new PPE factories will come into production in this country.0 -
People would still use it and it would still be unregulated.isam said:
It should be illegal in the sense that people are punished for using it, not the way it is now.Philip_Thompson said:
100%eek said:
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
isam makes the mistake of saying "marijuana is bad therefore it should be illegal" rather than explain why it being illegal and unregulated works when it so self-evidently doesn't. Prohibition has failed and moonshine alcohol was not safer or better than legal regulated alcohol.0 -
Fantastic. So that's sorted, what was all the drama about? Much ado about nothing it seemsPro_Rata said:This, my friends, will be our post transition trade agreement on January 1st. This is it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/freight-transport-in-the-context-of-covid-19-joint-statement-by-the-united-kingdom-france-and-ireland
It makes Neville Chamberlain s piece of paper look like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. 1 -
...
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problemPhilip_Thompson said:
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.DAlexander said:
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.0 -
between tax and NI my net rate is currently 23.99 and I am not even in the higher rate tax bandMaxPB said:
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.Pagan2 said:
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figuresRichard_Nabavi said:
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.Pagan2 said:You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example
My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X
The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332
B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£
b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota0 -
Biden statement on Tara Reade:
https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/statement-by-vice-president-joe-biden-7a9593bd3012
I think he's much better at this stuff than Hillary: He's coming at it straight on and it's clear what his defence is. When she was dealing with Her Emails she just kind of let it rumble on and tried to change the subject and point people to her website, which worked well in the debates but never put it to rest, then the Comey thing blew it back up at just the wrong time.0 -
I shall believe it when new PPE factories become available.RobD said:
OK, your claim it is doubtful that they have realised it. Would a government that has not realised it already be talking about a new strategy to increase domestic production?another_richard said:
I didn't claim anything I said it was doubtful and it is doubtful.RobD said:
Yeah, but your claim is that the government have yet to realise it. It's easy to see that they have.another_richard said:
And the result will be whether we see new PPE factories being opened in the coming months.RobD said:
We've been through this before.another_richard said:
Which is why we need to increase our own capacity to manufacture PPE, medical equipment etc.FrancisUrquhart said:Chinese flogging dangerous shit again...
Chinese ventilators that ministers heralded as vital to the NHS’s efforts to tackle Covid-19 were badly built, unsuitable for use in hospitals and potentially dangerous for patients, it has emerged.
A well-placed NHS source said the incident highlighted problems that had occurred with a range of medical supplies and equipment ordered from China during the coronavirus pandemic.
“Some other stuff ordered from China recently, especially personal protective equipment, has also turned out to be either of a lesser quality than what we need or to be the wrong thing altogether, like T-shirts instead of long-sleeved surgical gowns” they said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/30/entire-order-of-250-chinese-ventilators-were-useless-despite
Just taking the piss. Flog the west any old shit, because they will be too busy to worry about any come back.
Whether the government realises that is doubtful.
If its not then perhaps you could tell us when new PPE factories will come into production in this country.
I do not trust vague blather from politicians.0 -
And that's not even counting Employers NI! In reality of the pot of money your employer has to pay you you're being taxed even more!Pagan2 said:
between tax and NI my net rate is currently 23.99 and I am not even in the higher rate tax bandMaxPB said:
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.Pagan2 said:
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figuresRichard_Nabavi said:
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.Pagan2 said:You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example
My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X
The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332
B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£
b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota0 -
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.RobD said:
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.kinabalu said:Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.0 -
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150kMaxPB said:
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.Pagan2 said:
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figuresRichard_Nabavi said:
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.Pagan2 said:You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example
My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X
The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332
B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£
b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota0 -
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.alterego said:
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......Philip_Thompson said:
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?alterego said:
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.tlg86 said:
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.eek said:
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
0 -
Its been investigated by the Police and the courts in the past and overseas and it doesn't work. We could end up like in America where roughly half of the jail population at one point where in for drug offences and drug use would still occur.isam said:...
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problemPhilip_Thompson said:
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.DAlexander said:
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
And the drugs would still be unregulated. Prohibition does not work.0 -
Nigel, thanks once again for sharing interesting results. Query - is this an (enhanced) harvesting technique, or could cell lines be grown in vitro to actually manufacture the virus-specific T cells?Nigelb said:SUCCESSFUL MANUFACTURING OF CLINICAL-GRADE SARS-CoV-2 SPECIFIC T CELLS FOR ADOPTIVE CELL THERAPY (not my CAPS... but nonetheless, interesting.)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20077487v1
Background Adoptive therapy with SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for COVID-19 has not been reported. The feasibility of rapid clinical-grade manufacturing of virus-specific T cells from convalescent donors has not been demonstrated for this or prior pandemics. Methods One unit of whole blood was collected from each convalescent donor following standard blood bank practices. After the plasma was separated and stored separately, the leukocytes were stimulated using overlapping peptides of SARS-CoV-2, covering the immunodominant sequence domains of the S protein and the complete sequence of the N and M proteins. Thereafter, functionally reactive cells were enriched overnight using an automated device capturing IFNγ-secreting cells. Findings From 1x10[9] leukocytes, 0.56 to 1.16x10[6] IFNγ+ T cells were produced from each of the first two donors. Most of the T cells (64% to 71%) were IFNγ+, with preferential enrichment of CD56+ T cells, effector memory T cells, and effector memory RA+ T cells. TCRVβ spectratyping revealed oligoclonal distribution, with over-representation of subfamilies including Vβ3, Vβ16 and Vβ17. With just two donors, the probability that a recipient in the same ethnic group would share at least one donor HLA allele or one haplotype could be as high as >90% and >30%, respectively. Interpretations This study is limited by small number of donors and absence of recipient data; however, crucial first proof-of-principle data are provided demonstrating the feasibility of clinical-grade production of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for urgent clinical use, conceivably with plasma therapy concurrently. Our data showing that virus-specific T cells can be detected easily after brief stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 specific peptides suggest that a parallel diagnostic assay can be developed alongside serology testing....0 -
Same as with alcohol.Malmesbury said:
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.alterego said:
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......Philip_Thompson said:
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?alterego said:
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.tlg86 said:
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.eek said:
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
Legalise it, regulate it, tax it while targeting police resources (and revenue resources) at criminal gangs and it would be cheaper, healthier and safer to buy the legal version in the shop for most people than it would to buy the unregulated, illegal, untaxed version from the gangs.
Also the drugs you named are not legal ones you can buy over the counter like alcohol or tobacco or ibuprofen.0 -
Is that really a great example?edmundintokyo said:
Disagree, his memory's going a bit but his mind's still there. And they were always going to put up a rape accuser against any man who ran.Philip_Thompson said:
Wow its a different person.edmundintokyo said:
Biden isn't as sharp as he was but there's no sign that he's losing his mind, it's a totally different kind of thing to Trump.Stereotomy said:
Well, it's not proven in either case, but I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to conclude both of them. And Biden's cognitive decline seems worse than Trump's, which makes me wonder why all the liberals who were going on about Trump's lack of intelligence being so important for the last four years would pick Biden.Endillion said:
Wait, which one's the senile rapist?Stereotomy said:
Really? What word do you apply to people who refuse to vote for somebody they believe to be a senile rapist?rottenborough said:
'nihilists' is one word for them. I can think of others...Alistair said:Biden campaign continues to everything possible to keep Bernie Bros on board.
At this point Bernie Bros who refuse to vote Dem in November are nihilists.
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1255870024402812928?s=19
You notice it less with Trump because you get used to him being confused and incoherent but the decline is really dramatic if you look at a clip from when he was younger and realise that he used to be able to express coherent thoughts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w47wgdhso
Biden I think it is clear he's losing his mind. And with the rape allegations surrounding him with Reade too . . . he is not a good candidate at all.
Are there people as lucid and coherent at 75 as they were at 34?0 -
Might as well legalise all drugs, not just marijuana if that’s what you think. It’s no safer. I’d be prepared to bet a fair amount you were never a big drug user as a teenagerPhilip_Thompson said:
Its been investigated by the Police and the courts in the past and overseas and it doesn't work. We could end up like in America where roughly half of the jail population at one point where in for drug offences and drug use would still occur.isam said:...
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problemPhilip_Thompson said:
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.DAlexander said:
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
And the drugs would still be unregulated. Prohibition does not work.0 -
Cyclefree, thanks for a thought provoking article. I have also been giving some thought as to how the world will be different post-COVID, but primarily within my professional domain, not for society at large across the whole spectrum.
On IHT, my initial reaction is that spouses do need the exemption. How do you disentangle each spouse's contribution to joint assets, such as their principal residence? Who you evict the surviving spouse who is property rich and cash poor? How would you deal with the spouse who stopped working to bring up the family to enable the other spouse to build the business that created the family's wealth?
But, in principle, I agree. We need to be open to rethinking all our assumptions on government and taxation.1 -
JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=200 -
Yes, definitely - a lot of people will be much better communicators at 75 than 34. They may have lost something in quick repartee but a lot of old people can still speak clearly.isam said:Is that really a great example?
Are there people as lucid and coherent at 75 as they were at 34?
More to the point, when you watch Trump now, it's very clear that there's something wrong with him beyond a weak memory or whatever.0 -
True - my point was that we already know the price of legally manufacturing and distributing even the hardest drugs. Complete with security in the supply chain. And much less volume.Philip_Thompson said:
Same as with alcohol.Malmesbury said:
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.alterego said:
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......Philip_Thompson said:
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?alterego said:
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.tlg86 said:
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.eek said:
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
Legalise it, regulate it, tax it while targeting police resources (and revenue resources) at criminal gangs and it would be cheaper, healthier and safer to buy the legal version in the shop for most people than it would to buy the unregulated, illegal, untaxed version from the gangs.
Also the drugs you named are not legal ones you can buy over the counter like alcohol or tobacco or ibuprofen.
Between the legal and illegal cost of supply is a huge gap. This applies to all drugs. So it would be perfectly possible to have a legal product that was
1) Cheaper
2) Involved a hefty tax payment
The only issue would be to make sure that 2) doesn't break 1)
This is an issue already in the US, in some places that have legalised marijuana.1 -
The war on drugs has failed. A significant number of people want to take drugs. It's impossible to police. Compared to alcohol the damage they do is small. Decriminalise, tax, and stop throwing massive resource at trying to stop people taking psychoactive substances, they always have, always will. Yes some people will be damaged - as is the case with alcohol. Most people don't have whisky for breakfast, but some do. The effects of alcohol clog up A&Es (or did until recently) every weekend.isam said:...
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problemPhilip_Thompson said:
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.DAlexander said:
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
Most drug use is sensible, recreational and non-harmful. We should encourage sensible, recreational use. With support services for those who need it.
Stop spending huge amounts globally trying to stop the drug trade. It doesn't work.
I have personal experience of living with an alcoholic and I know of what I speak in relation to drugs. From my view alcoholism is generally much more damaging to those who abuse it and those around them.
There should be proper support for drug addicts of all description, be they legal or illegal drugs.1 -
Yes we might as well legalise and regulate them and educate the public. Just like we might as well legalise and regulate all alcohol and educate the public, we don't just legalise low-strength alcohol.isam said:
Might as well legalise all drugs, not just marijuana if that’s what you think. It’s no safer. I’d be prepared to bet a fair amount you were never a big drug user as a teenagerPhilip_Thompson said:
Its been investigated by the Police and the courts in the past and overseas and it doesn't work. We could end up like in America where roughly half of the jail population at one point where in for drug offences and drug use would still occur.isam said:...
Yes, it’s ignored by the Police! That’s the problemPhilip_Thompson said:
Its almost as if prohibition is ignored and puts the product in the hands of criminal gangsters whose concern isn't safety regulations but rather profiteering with violence.DAlexander said:
It's everywhere already, go for a walk and you'll find people smoking it. It smells much stronger than 20 years ago as well.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
It seems that 90% of 15-25 year old males are smoking it, I dread to think about all the mental health problems resulting in a decade or so.
And the drugs would still be unregulated. Prohibition does not work.1 -
Delboy's gonna Delboy...
David Singleton, 42, a senior NHS official in London who has been working at the capital’s Covid-19 Nightingale hospital, launched the business two weeks ago to trade in visors, masks and gowns.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/01/revealed-nhs-procurement-official-privately-selling-ppe0 -
Let's give him a round of applause.FrancisUrquhart said:Delboy's gonna Delboy...
David Singleton, 42, a senior NHS official in London who has been working at the capital’s Covid-19 Nightingale hospital, launched the business two weeks ago to trade in visors, masks and gowns.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/01/revealed-nhs-procurement-official-privately-selling-ppe0 -
Precisely and everyone who's mocked him for setting such a foolhardy target has only confirmed this.Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Well done Hancock. Surely one of the great politicians of our time.2 -
I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.0
-
Well said. Sadly too often there's a desire to get immediate high taxes, like in all walks of life would be best off to start with a low tax and that can if its too low be raised in future budgets.Malmesbury said:
True - my point was that we already know the price of legally manufacturing and distributing even the hardest drugs. Complete with security in the supply chain. And much less volume.Philip_Thompson said:
Same as with alcohol.Malmesbury said:
Legal versions of various illegal drugs exist, are manufactured and sold at a profit.Philip_Thompson said:
I want to do both. And for-profit companies work smarter and better than not-for-profit ones. Profit is not a bad thing.alterego said:
Your first sentence - it depends on what your motivation is for producing a legal version. Do you want to kill the illegal version or do you want to make a profit? You pays your money ......Philip_Thompson said:
Why on earth would legalised drugs be sold not for profit?alterego said:
If legalised drugs are sold "not for profit" then you surely kill the illegal versions and , metaphorically, those involved therewith.tlg86 said:
But only if you're prepared to dish out serious punishment for possession of illegal drugs.eek said:
My opinion is that legalising it is better than keeping it illegal at least with regulation you can control the potency.isam said:A terrible idea that could happen is legalising, and taxing, marijuana
They should be sold for profit by a regulated company like Diageo.
The reality is who buys moonshine from a gangster when they can get a bottle of vodka (skunk) or beer (soft marijuana) from a shop?
Not sure about your last sentence either, but if that's your experience it doesn't necessarily have wider ramifications.
How much illegal moonshine alcohol do you buy from gangsters? I've personally always bought beer, wine and spirits that were legally produced as opposed to illegal unregulated gangster moonshine.
Look up novocaine and diamorphine.
What is often misunderstood is how cheap drugs are fundamentally. The thing that makes them expensive "on the street" is that they are supplied and sold by multiple layers of criminals. Who are very incompetent at running supply chains. Hence they are always stealing from each other.
Legalise it, regulate it, tax it while targeting police resources (and revenue resources) at criminal gangs and it would be cheaper, healthier and safer to buy the legal version in the shop for most people than it would to buy the unregulated, illegal, untaxed version from the gangs.
Also the drugs you named are not legal ones you can buy over the counter like alcohol or tobacco or ibuprofen.
Between the legal and illegal cost of supply is a huge gap. This applies to all drugs. So it would be perfectly possible to have a legal product that was
1) Cheaper
2) Involved a hefty tax payment
The only issue would be to make sure that 2) doesn't break 1)
This is an issue already in the US, in some places that have legalised marijuana.0 -
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=200 -
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* peoplekinabalu said:
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.RobD said:
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.kinabalu said:Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with2 -
Yes, to your first point.Fenman said:I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
0 -
Not even at a reduced rate. Make pension income NI-able. NI is a tax like any other now.rottenborough said:
Yes, to your first point.Fenman said:I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
0 -
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.0 -
Don't forget NI and personal allowances which are fading in and out of this subthread. Currently someone on £50k pays 25 per cent according to:Pagan2 said:
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150kMaxPB said:
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.Pagan2 said:
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figuresRichard_Nabavi said:
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.Pagan2 said:You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example
My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X
The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332
B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£
b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/estimate-paye-take-home-pay/your-pay0 -
Enhanced harvesting. (In time, I've no doubt cell lines could be manufactured, but I have little idea of how long it might take to do so reliably... @Charles ? )TimT said:
Nigel, thanks once again for sharing interesting results. Query - is this an (enhanced) harvesting technique, or could cell lines be grown in vitro to actually manufacture the virus-specific T cells?Nigelb said:SUCCESSFUL MANUFACTURING OF CLINICAL-GRADE SARS-CoV-2 SPECIFIC T CELLS FOR ADOPTIVE CELL THERAPY (not my CAPS... but nonetheless, interesting.)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20077487v1
Background Adoptive therapy with SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for COVID-19 has not been reported. The feasibility of rapid clinical-grade manufacturing of virus-specific T cells from convalescent donors has not been demonstrated for this or prior pandemics. Methods One unit of whole blood was collected from each convalescent donor following standard blood bank practices. After the plasma was separated and stored separately, the leukocytes were stimulated using overlapping peptides of SARS-CoV-2, covering the immunodominant sequence domains of the S protein and the complete sequence of the N and M proteins. Thereafter, functionally reactive cells were enriched overnight using an automated device capturing IFNγ-secreting cells. Findings From 1x10[9] leukocytes, 0.56 to 1.16x10[6] IFNγ+ T cells were produced from each of the first two donors. Most of the T cells (64% to 71%) were IFNγ+, with preferential enrichment of CD56+ T cells, effector memory T cells, and effector memory RA+ T cells. TCRVβ spectratyping revealed oligoclonal distribution, with over-representation of subfamilies including Vβ3, Vβ16 and Vβ17. With just two donors, the probability that a recipient in the same ethnic group would share at least one donor HLA allele or one haplotype could be as high as >90% and >30%, respectively. Interpretations This study is limited by small number of donors and absence of recipient data; however, crucial first proof-of-principle data are provided demonstrating the feasibility of clinical-grade production of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells for urgent clinical use, conceivably with plasma therapy concurrently. Our data showing that virus-specific T cells can be detected easily after brief stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 specific peptides suggest that a parallel diagnostic assay can be developed alongside serology testing....
From the paper:
...For the T cells to be effective for virus control, they
must act fast before complete donor-cell rejection. In this regard, the CCS system selects functionally rather than phenotypically and preferentially enriches those T cells that can secrete
IFNγ within hours after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 specific peptides by the nature of memory recall response. In contrast, de novo alloreactivity takes several days to develop, and could be longer in severely lymphopenic patients with severe COVID-19. Phenotypically, the CCS isolated cells are enriched for CD56+ T cells, CD4+ TEM cells, and CD8+ TEM and TEMRA cells, all of which are known to have potent and rapid pathogen response (thus captured preferentially by CCS)
For pandemics caused by novel pathogens, development of specific vaccines for active immunization takes time; however, passive immunity can be acquired immediately via blood component transfusion from recovered patients. In this regard, promising preliminary data have been reported on the use of plasmatherapy forCOVID-19. Conceivably, our adoptiveT-cell therapy approach can be easily combined with plasma infusion from the same donor or different donor. T cells are a “living drug” and can expand in vivo, which is in contrast pharmacokinetically to antibody, of which the level universally drops after infusion because of consumption or natural metabolism. Accordingly, a unit of donor’s blood may potentially treat more patients and the therapeutic effects of T cells may be more durable than that of plasma therapy. For a dose of 5x103 SARS-CoV-2 T cells/kg, the cells from the donor with mild symptoms could provide sufficient cells for 3 adult recipients; correspondingly, the donor with severe symptoms could potentially benefit as many as 6 recipients. Pharmacodynamically, SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells may be used alone or synergistically with plasma therapy to establish immediately an adaptive immune status mimicking that after successful vaccination. Under the protection of adaptive immunity, the body will not depend solely on innate immune the CCS system)...0 -
I suppose Johnson might save something if he went for a low tax, singapore on sea, bonfire of the regulations, quango crushing, public sector munching Thatcherism on steroids.
That policy might make some money.
Nowhere near as much as the untold billions he's blown trying to protect healthy people from getting a disease that doesn't threaten them, of course, but something.
0 -
I rather got the impression that the "system" doesn't want mass testing if it involves the "wrong" kind of process - using the "wrong" labs, testing being out of control of the "right" people.Charles said:
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* peoplekinabalu said:
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.RobD said:
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.kinabalu said:Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with0 -
Yes, it's why I don't understand Richard's proposal. Our tax system works very much like he says it should already, just without having multiple rates.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Don't forget NI and personal allowances which are fading in and out of this subthread. Currently someone on £50k pays 25 per cent according to:Pagan2 said:
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150kMaxPB said:
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.Pagan2 said:
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figuresRichard_Nabavi said:
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.Pagan2 said:You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example
My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X
The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332
B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£
b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/estimate-paye-take-home-pay/your-pay0 -
See moaning of sources to the Guardian that Deloitte and Amazon were brought onboard.Malmesbury said:
I rather got the impression that the "system" doesn't want mass testing if it involves the "wrong" kind of process - using the "wrong" labs, testing being out of control of the "right" people.Charles said:
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* peoplekinabalu said:
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.RobD said:
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.kinabalu said:Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with0 -
The death toll when nothing is done was predicted to be half a million people.contrarian said:I suppose Johnson might save something if he went for a low tax, singapore on sea, bonfire of the regulations, quango crushing, public sector munching Thatcherism on steroids.
That policy might make some money.
Nowhere near as much as the untold billions he's blown trying to protect healthy people from getting a disease that doesn't threaten them, of course, but something.0 -
Good review article describing what we know about the viral disease, in Nature:
The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0311-8
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alongside investigations into the virology of SARS-CoV-2, understanding the fundamental physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Here, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression. From nascent reports describing SARS-CoV-2, we make inferences on the basis of the parallel pathophysiological and immunological features of the other human coronaviruses targeting the lower respiratory tract — severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Finally, we highlight the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation...
0 -
Needlessly over-complicated from Freeman in the fawning stakes, he should gave just posted a gif of some noble creature of the Serengeti.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.0 -
I agree with the @SouthamObserver suggestion of scrapping Trident to pay for Covid. Safe to support Jezza’s policies now he’s gone!0
-
for simplicity I was assuming under richards scheme tax allowances and ni remained the same as he didnt state otherwiseDecrepiterJohnL said:
Don't forget NI and personal allowances which are fading in and out of this subthread. Currently someone on £50k pays 25 per cent according to:Pagan2 said:
Also the 35% corresponds to Richards new sliding scale scheme not net taxation where the percent tax you pay depends where you are on the scale between minium wage and 150kMaxPB said:
It's about 20% at the moment. Anyone who pays a net rate of 35% is earning six figures.Richard_Nabavi said:
No, your figure of 35% at £40K is far, far too high. I haven't done the full sums (and of course it could be calibrated at whatever rate the Chancellor wanted), but I'd guess it would probably be around 15% at that level.Pagan2 said:
You miss my point entirely, I am not talking about not taking extra pay I am talking about the effect on take home pay differentials let me illustrate with some figuresRichard_Nabavi said:
No, it's the other way round. The proposal I described is designed to reduce the perverse incentive not to take the increased pay, which you get at the moment because of various tax band effects (and benefits as well). At no point in the system I'm describing would you be heavily penalised for earning extra pay.Pagan2 said:You are making an assumption here that tax is all that incentivises people to forgo income.
for example
My job my take home pay is Y, for a shelf stacker it is X
The extra money I get paid (Y-X) incentivises me to keep in my job and not quit and become a shelf stacker.
However my job also involves unpaid overtime, stress, support rota's, longer commutes probably as most shelf stackers will live closer to work. If the value Y-X becomes small enough that I don't think the extra pay is worth all that extra angst I definitely go sod this I will go shelf stacking instead. Your progressive taxation lowers the value of Y-X as I will be paying a larger portion of tax than currently thus lowering the value of Y and possibly raising the value of X.
A earns 20k he pays currently 20% tax of 29pounds a week and takes home 332
B earns 40k he pays currently 20% tax of 106pounds a week and takes home 529
B considers that the extra 197£ a week is reasonable compensation for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
under your system A now pays for example 5% and b pays 35%
A now pays tax of 7£ a week and takes home 354£
b now pays tax of 185$ a week and takes home 450£
Now B is wondering if the 96 pounds extra is worth it for the unpaid overtime , the commute costs, the stress and the support rota
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/estimate-paye-take-home-pay/your-pay0 -
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
“The news that our Prime Minister has become a father again is the second piece of personal good news he has had in a month. And once again, his opponents have shown that they cannot stand it — or even credit it — when something good happens to him.”
https://unherd.com/2020/05/does-fortune-favour-boris/0 -
He's like Rasputin, isn't he. The power behind the throne.isam said:I agree with @SouthamObserver suggestion of scrapping Trident to pay for Covid. Safe to support Jezza’s policies now he’s gone!
0 -
What was interesting was the vagueness of the complaints in the BBC reports - questioning the target of 100k, saying that the process plan for testing usage was important and meeeeeeeeeah.....FrancisUrquhart said:
See moaning of sources to the Guardian that Deloitte and Amazon were brought onboard.Malmesbury said:
I rather got the impression that the "system" doesn't want mass testing if it involves the "wrong" kind of process - using the "wrong" labs, testing being out of control of the "right" people.Charles said:
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* peoplekinabalu said:
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.RobD said:
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.kinabalu said:Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
Almost as if they wanted to say something extra but couldn't - like "We don't want there to be more tests".0 -
Alternatively, the unions wanted the right people tested all along and HMG is testing ... well, see Matt's cartoon.Charles said:
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* peoplekinabalu said:
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.RobD said:
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.kinabalu said:Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/31/matt-cartoons-april-2020/matt-cartoon-april-29/0 -
The number of healthy people of all ages that Corona has killed in england during this pandemic?RobD said:
The death toll when nothing is done was predicted to be half a million people.contrarian said:I suppose Johnson might save something if he went for a low tax, singapore on sea, bonfire of the regulations, quango crushing, public sector munching Thatcherism on steroids.
That policy might make some money.
Nowhere near as much as the untold billions he's blown trying to protect healthy people from getting a disease that doesn't threaten them, of course, but something.
Under 1,000.
60 and under? 250.
According to NHS England.
Its a disease that targets the vulnerable old. We have known that for a while
0 -
My terrible history of playing named individual markets. A tiny win on Boris was offset by an order of magnitude larger failure on Starmer.Stocky said:
Why lay (at 2.04) on winning party market when you can lay Trump specifically (at 2.12) and have two chances of winning? You are running the risk of Trump pulling out and the Reps going on to win with a different nominee.Alistair said:
I am using the winning party market. I'm far more cautious than I would otherwise be as I fear the GOP using Coronavirus as cover for a massive voter disenfranchisement push but otherwise I'm with you. Trump is fucked.Stocky said:Betting post: I`ve posted a few times over the last few weeks and months that Trump`s narcicism means that he doesn`t fight battles he thinks he won`t win. His ego can`t take defeat. I`m still not convinced he`ll run. And I believe that if he does he will lose - and lose badly. That was my position before the virus and think it even more so now. Accordingly, I`ve been laying Trump all over the shop both to win the GE and to be the Rep nominee.
I now see that Trump himself is starting to question things. See links below, which are articles written in the last few hours.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/trump-doesnt-understand-why-hes-losing/610924/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/30/trump-shocked-learn-he-might-not-win-reelection/
There are various ways to lay Trump with BF:
Winning party: lay Republicans at 2.04
Republican nominee: lay Trump at 1.07
Nominee combo: lay Trump/Biden at 1.20
Next President: lay Trump at 2.12
I wouldn`t put anyone off taking any of these, but my favourite lay at the moment is the bottom market on this list.
"Bet on the team not the players" is my motto in sports betting and I have vowed to apply it to political betting as well.
So laying Trump is probably a far better option but to be honest I don't see a situation where the GOPs chance improve by Trump stepping aside. The chaos and confusion it would cause would be detrimental to overall party unity.0 -
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.OldKingCole said:
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.malcolmg said:
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.HYUFD said:
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern EuropeRochdalePioneers said:
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.Philip_Thompson said:
So we print cash.RochdalePioneers said:
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.HYUFD said:So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'0 -
Dumbest move Trump ever made. Biden would have dropped out of the Primary Process if not for the Ukraine situation.DougSeal said:
Trump colluded with a foreign government to try and frame Biden. If he were a disaster zone of a candidate then Trump wouldn't have taken that risk.Alistair said:Oh yeah, Biden being a disaster zone of a candidate is another reason I am being cautious.
0 -
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
0 -
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
The 2008/2009 GFC was a crisis - inflation was also low.Philip_Thompson said:
There's a difference between doing it during a crisis in extremis and only as long as conditions remain favourable with low inflation - and doing it on a daily basis for day to day expenditure.algarkirk said:
When you borrow large amounts of money from yourself at 0% interest rates two questions arise: What could possibly go wrong? and Why is this not OK if a Labour government does it?MaxPB said:
There's no need, the debt from this whole crisis wilo be monetised and the government is set to pay itself the interest. The government currently owns around 25% of it's own bonds for which it pays a net rate of 0% interest. That figure is about to go up to 37%. Around £1.2tn of our existing debt pile is interest bearing to non-government holders, that figure isn't going to change. Our "true" debt ratio is about 55% that will rise as the economy contracts and fall as it grows, but we aren't ultimately adding any new interest bearing debt.Pulpstar said:The world collectively seems to be in lots of debt, but who is the debt owed to ?
What would happen if it was just cancelled collectively by the EU, USA, Japan and ourselves ?
Is China in debt ?
It's why the markets are willing to accept an eyewatering debt ratio of over 100% in nominal terms for the UK.
If a thing sounds like a perpetual motion machine to the uneducated mind is it possible that in fact it is?
That's like saying if it's ok to get a mortgage to pay for a home then why not borrow for that foreign holiday that you can't afford?0 -
The government have to be kept on their toes, Charles. We don't want complacency setting in until the virus is beaten. Once it's beaten, that's the time for complacency. Very much looking forward to it too, I have to say.Charles said:
It was quite funny to watch the pivot a couple of days (from one of the NHS unions I think) - the 100k target was irrelevant. Was he testing the *right* peoplekinabalu said:
You're too kind to assume that when a high profile target with political significance is met with nothing to spare it indicates a well managed process. But of course it might have been in this case. By the same token perhaps I am being unkind in suspecting an element of data manipulation. There often is in such cases but there might well not have been here. I would judge an element of data manipulation slightly more likely than a well managed process - but perhaps most likely is that there was neither of those things.RobD said:
Question 1 - are you suggesting they are making the numbers up? I think you'll need evidence to support this. As with most deadlines, the work is finished immediately prior to the deadline. That indicates that effort was well managed.kinabalu said:Oh and just to congratulate the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Took a lot of stick but he made it. 100k tests. Tick.
One could ask questions - (i) Is he marking his own homework? (ii) Was the target too hard and thus more important things have suffered because of it? (iii) Was the target too easy given it has been met? (iv) Is it not a trifle suspicious how it has been exactly met on the exact due day? (v) Just what generally was Hancock playing at with this whole "target" business? (vi) Was he - is he - using it to distract and hide something?
But let's not do this. This is not a time to be churlish. The time to be churlish will be come the inevitable public inquiry next year into all aspects of the government's response to Covid-19.
What I think all can agree on is it's great that we have finally upped our game on testing.
Almost as if it was just a stick to beat the government with0 -
This is the calm before the storm. Furlough is fantastically expensive as it is, but wait until it gives way to mass unemployment.Fenman said:I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
A lot of the jobs that are being kept on life support right now will not be revived. Much of the leisure and hospitality industry is liable to be wiped out because it will take such a very long time before it can be reopened, and who knows how long after that before the customers can be enticed to return. The shops should open sooner, but physical retail will shrivel anyway until the sales of the surviving outlets match remaining consumer demand which, needless to say, is likely to be low.
That's an awful lot of new universal credit claimants to be propped up by a rapidly shrinking tax base - and that's before taking into account the eventual tsunami wave of mortgage repossessions and evictions from rental properties alike. Is the Government going to tolerate an enormous increase in rough sleeping? And even if it does, families with children will have to be accommodated somewhere, regardless of the additional costs.
The Government is going to end up being forced to hose this crisis down with sums of money that would've made John McDonnell blush.0 -
Charge a tenner to visit A&E, refundable if you are under the drink drive limit and clean of illegal drugsCyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.2 -
Oh of course it was and it was right to run a deficit and have Quantitive Easing during the crisis. However the crisis wasn't still going in 2010 when Darling still didn't want to tackle the deficit let alone 2013, 2014 or later when Labour still didn't want to tackle it, or 2015 or later.justin124 said:
The 2008/2009 GFC was a crisis - inflation was also low.Philip_Thompson said:
There's a difference between doing it during a crisis in extremis and only as long as conditions remain favourable with low inflation - and doing it on a daily basis for day to day expenditure.algarkirk said:
When you borrow large amounts of money from yourself at 0% interest rates two questions arise: What could possibly go wrong? and Why is this not OK if a Labour government does it?MaxPB said:
There's no need, the debt from this whole crisis wilo be monetised and the government is set to pay itself the interest. The government currently owns around 25% of it's own bonds for which it pays a net rate of 0% interest. That figure is about to go up to 37%. Around £1.2tn of our existing debt pile is interest bearing to non-government holders, that figure isn't going to change. Our "true" debt ratio is about 55% that will rise as the economy contracts and fall as it grows, but we aren't ultimately adding any new interest bearing debt.Pulpstar said:The world collectively seems to be in lots of debt, but who is the debt owed to ?
What would happen if it was just cancelled collectively by the EU, USA, Japan and ourselves ?
Is China in debt ?
It's why the markets are willing to accept an eyewatering debt ratio of over 100% in nominal terms for the UK.
If a thing sounds like a perpetual motion machine to the uneducated mind is it possible that in fact it is?
That's like saying if it's ok to get a mortgage to pay for a home then why not borrow for that foreign holiday that you can't afford?
2020 is the year of the crisis. Within a couple of years if we still have a structural deficit we will need to address it as we needed to in 2010. Thankfully we're going into 2020 in better shape than we went into 2008.0 -
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
You think the NHS want to handle something as dirty as money - it's beneath their dignity level.isam said:
Charge a tenner to visit A&E, refundable if you are under the drink drive limit and clean of illegal drugsCyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.0 -
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?kinabalu said:
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
Mass unemployment is cheaper - have you seen how little you get on universal credit?Black_Rook said:
This is the calm before the storm. Furlough is fantastically expensive as it is, but wait until it gives way to mass unemployment.Fenman said:I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
A lot of the jobs that are being kept on life support right now will not be revived. Much of the leisure and hospitality industry is liable to be wiped out because it will take such a very long time before it can be reopened, and who knows how long after that before the customers can be enticed to return. The shops should open sooner, but physical retail will shrivel anyway until the sales of the surviving outlets match remaining consumer demand which, needless to say, is likely to be low.
That's an awful lot of new universal credit claimants to be propped up by a rapidly shrinking tax base - and that's before taking into account the eventual tsunami wave of mortgage repossessions and evictions from rental properties alike. Is the Government going to tolerate an enormous increase in rough sleeping? And even if it does, families with children will have to be accommodated somewhere, regardless of the additional costs.
The Government is going to end up being forced to hose this crisis down with sums of money that would've made John McDonnell blush.0 -
At least it would get rid of the Tories for good.MaxPB said:
Not even at a reduced rate. Make pension income NI-able. NI is a tax like any other now.rottenborough said:
Yes, to your first point.Fenman said:I think a new reduced health and care NI for pensioners would be appropriate. Tax the rich. Print some money, there is little risk of inflation. But equally, I think time will prove that the government has spent far less than people seem to think.
0 -
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.malcolmg said:
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.OldKingCole said:
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.malcolmg said:
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.HYUFD said:
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern EuropeRochdalePioneers said:
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.Philip_Thompson said:
So we print cash.RochdalePioneers said:
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.HYUFD said:So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
0 -
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
The poor may pay less VAT because more of what they spend money on is exempt from it. But when they do it is highly regressive because that is the nature of any sales tax.not_on_fire said:The idea that even the poorest should have to pay income tax due to some moral need for all to contribute is a bit weird. Everyone pays VAT and other universal taxes already.
The argument is that everyone should contribute because it avoids (a) the free rider problem; and (b) it makes for better accountability. But it is the same argument - in reverse - as that made by some rich people: I don’t use these services so why should I pay for them. I don’t have much truck with that. But if universality is important then there is an argument that it should apply to all citizens. That is the argument behind having universal welfare benefits after all. If these are available to all, people will be more willing to pay for them. If they are only available to a few then those who pay may be less willing to pay for them. This problem is already seen in the US and could come here if we’re not careful.1 -
What is this fabled "Air Passenger" of which you speak.Cyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
Another giant hole in the revenues tream of Govt. for the foreseeable.0 -
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.RobD said:
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?kinabalu said:
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?Cyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.0 -
Shame, would have been an improvement.Theuniondivvie said:
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.RobD said:
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?kinabalu said:
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.2 -
For sure that would be a much better solutionMalmesbury said:
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.malcolmg said:
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.OldKingCole said:
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.malcolmg said:
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.HYUFD said:
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern EuropeRochdalePioneers said:
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.Philip_Thompson said:
So we print cash.RochdalePioneers said:
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.HYUFD said:So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.0 -
Not at all. We'd have had the usual 23 or so around the table. But alas ...RobD said:
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?kinabalu said:
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
Fell into a right miserable funk on Wednesday and it shows no sign of lifting on what is now day 45 in the cage. Management meeting this lunchtime just reinforces the misery - CEO looking at options to start resuming "normal" in June maybe.
So a best best case of me leaving the hamster cage by day 76 though if "normal" is the split shifts we ran for all of a week and a half I'm not getting out of here until day 90. So this is maybe half distance possibly.
Fuck.0 -
First rule of low level political zingery, spell the name of your opponents correctly if you're gonnae do wan on them.RobD said:
Shame, would have been an improvement.Theuniondivvie said:
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.RobD said:
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?kinabalu said:
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
The search for the world's most stupid person has come to a ridiculous end.
https://twitter.com/cluedont/status/12561986500966932480 -
He would raise the capability of it. His Houses have done more to help those who need the NHS than that Shadow Cabinet ever did.Theuniondivvie said:
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.RobD said:
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?kinabalu said:
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
If you are interested, my EvulMasterplan looks like thismalcolmg said:
For sure that would be a much better solutionMalmesbury said:
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.malcolmg said:
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.OldKingCole said:
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.malcolmg said:
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.HYUFD said:
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern EuropeRochdalePioneers said:
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.Philip_Thompson said:
So we print cash.RochdalePioneers said:
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.HYUFD said:So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
1) Abolish the tax free allowance for income tax and NI.
2) UBI of the former basic rate of tax paid by the government, monthly, directly to a specified account.
3) Automatic assumed payment of minimum NI included in that.
4) UBI can never be taxed, withdrawn etc. Everyone gets it
5) All earrings above UBI are taxed.
6) Additional benefits for disability etc. But these should be rare.0 -
One of the key elements that people overlook on taxes is are they cost efficient and easy to collect accurately ...kinabalu said:
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?Cyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
0 -
I confess I didn't. But "well written" always helps.Philip_Thompson said:
Did you even bother to read the article? It is well written.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.
This is quite well written too -
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/march2019
Don't you think?0 -
The same applies if you have children living in them. But that does not stop IHT being levied when a parent dies.ydoethur said:On the thread header, Cyclefree’s question ‘why should a spouse have exemption from inheritance tax but not the children?’ is very easily answered. It’s a way of more or less guaranteeing that the house doesn’t have to be sold, because spouses are somewhat more likely to be living in them than children.
Because again, houses are totemic, particularly at a time of grief. Theresa May can explain this to you...
It is easy to find reasons why something or someone should NOT be taxed. But if the money is needed - and it will be - you need to find it from somewhere. So you need to question your previous assumptions, provocative and difficult as that may be.0 -
There's no point in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good re carbon taxes. No, they won't stop the use of fossil fuels and they may not bring in a huge amount of money, but they will reduce the use of fossil fuels and the will bring in some money. They are also relatively easy to implement and have some public support. It really does seem a no-brainer to introduce them as a contribution towards protecting the environment and balancing the books.Cyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.1 -
You seem to forget houses find it very difficult to up sticks and move abroad.TGOHF666 said:
One of the key elements that people overlook on taxes is are they cost efficient and easy to collect accurately ...kinabalu said:
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?Cyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
It's why property and land taxes are easy to tax as they are harder to avoid than a lot of other taxes.0 -
These fcukers spend oodles on infra red sights and top of the range body armour but won't pay an alterations shop to take up the hems of their breeks (I'm assuming that they're too useless to do it themselves)?
https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1256184749351190528?s=200 -
Earl Home also.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1256139990473617409
I've got Jay. Can't get the other one.0 -
Although it's only been a month and half, it's been a heck of a long month and a half.... pre-lockdown seems a long long time ago.RochdalePioneers said:Fell into a right miserable funk on Wednesday and it shows no sign of lifting on what is now day 45 in the cage. Management meeting this lunchtime just reinforces the misery - CEO looking at options to start resuming "normal" in June maybe.
So a best best case of me leaving the hamster cage by day 76 though if "normal" is the split shifts we ran for all of a week and a half I'm not getting out of here until day 90. So this is maybe half distance possibly.
Fuck.0 -
Are you able to exercise?RochdalePioneers said:Fell into a right miserable funk on Wednesday and it shows no sign of lifting on what is now day 45 in the cage. Management meeting this lunchtime just reinforces the misery - CEO looking at options to start resuming "normal" in June maybe.
So a best best case of me leaving the hamster cage by day 76 though if "normal" is the split shifts we ran for all of a week and a half I'm not getting out of here until day 90. So this is maybe half distance possibly.
Fuck.0 -
I think my riposte was sufficient.Theuniondivvie said:
First rule of low level political zingery, spell the name of your opponents correctly if you're gonnae do wan on them.RobD said:
Shame, would have been an improvement.Theuniondivvie said:
Tbf I don't think Ronald McDonald was going to be in a Corbyn cabinet.RobD said:
Weren't you promoting a cabinet consisting of Corbyn and McDonald?kinabalu said:
This is a poor cabinet. Not sure I can recall one quite like it.FF43 said:
Hancock is average in my limited estimation. If he was supported by a cabinet of competent team players he would probably do fine. Unfortunately the actual cabinet of unhelpful incompetents doesn't give him the support he needs. He is very exposed.kinabalu said:
We must have different absurdity thresholds, you and I. My genuine initial reaction was to look for the blue tick because it must surely be a piss take.Endillion said:
Oh, come on. He's not saying that Hancock's achievement is comparable to the moon landings, just that the principle is that same. He set what looked like an almost impossible target and has effectively met it under difficult circumstances.kinabalu said:
That is quite bizarre. If I was thinking of doing one of my silly satirical type posts lampooning 'Hancock's Target' I would probably do something like that - liken it in deadpan language to JFK and the moonshot and things equally OTT and absurd and ridiculous. And here we have a supposedly loyal Tory MP taking the piss out of it in just that way! Is Freeman for the chop now, I wonder? And does it indicate a growing contempt for Hancock on the backbenches?Theuniondivvie said:JFK, Attlee, Thatch and..er..Hancock.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1255788963870248960?s=20
Millions of self-help books are sold every year on the principle that you can learn from the techniques used by great leaders. I don't think Freeman is suggesting anything beyond that.
Pleased for Matt though. I do like him. Not sure how effective he is but I do like him.0 -
Sure - but dig out 2 levels of basement, add an extension and spend thousands on renovations and your house is worth not a penny more in current tax world.eek said:
You seem to forget houses find it very difficult to up sticks and move abroad.TGOHF666 said:
One of the key elements that people overlook on taxes is are they cost efficient and easy to collect accurately ...kinabalu said:
Tax on residential property. Tap into the £6 trillion. Do you like the sound of that?Cyclefree said:
Why? People happily pay a call out charge for a sick pet but faint with horror at doing the same for a sick child. Which is more important?kamski said:Whether charging for going to the doctor is a good idea or not I don't know, but the argument that people can afford to pay vets so why not doctors is really silly.
Also weird that so many suggestions but no mention of a carbon tax, which is anyway a no-brainer even without Covid.
Carbon taxes are a very good idea. But if they are going to be effective in stopping behaviour we do not want they will not raise much money. Or not as much as we may need. I would also tax airline fuel (assuming there are any airlines left) and raise Air Passenger Duty.
It's why property and land taxes are easy to tax as they are harder to avoid than a lot of other taxes.
You then pay the same as your neighbour who hasn't redecorated or improved and has an asset worth half yours.
0 -
Sounds nice and simple solution , what would they do with all the parasitic lawyers and accountants that do the tax evasion though.Malmesbury said:
If you are interested, my EvulMasterplan looks like thismalcolmg said:
For sure that would be a much better solutionMalmesbury said:
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.malcolmg said:
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.OldKingCole said:
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.malcolmg said:
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.HYUFD said:
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern EuropeRochdalePioneers said:
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.Philip_Thompson said:
So we print cash.RochdalePioneers said:
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.HYUFD said:So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
1) Abolish the tax free allowance for income tax and NI.
2) UBI of the former basic rate of tax paid by the government, monthly, directly to a specified account.
3) Automatic assumed payment of minimum NI included in that.
4) UBI can never be taxed, withdrawn etc. Everyone gets it
5) All earrings above UBI are taxed.
6) Additional benefits for disability etc. But these should be rare.0 -
-
I would also like Trident to be scrapped, but I think the resulting savings should be allocated to conventional forces/armaments.isam said:I agree with the @SouthamObserver suggestion of scrapping Trident to pay for Covid. Safe to support Jezza’s policies now he’s gone!
Personally, I would do the following:
-Scrap HS2. Try to find an inexpensive outcome that makes some sense out of what has been done so far.
-Increase digital tax, per transaction. For the most part these companies have had it bloody good over corona and can afford it. They will likely respond by increasing their prices to UK consumers, but that, whilst not desirable, will at least help the physical retail sector.
-Create a fuel-duty stabiliser. In low fuel-price times it rises as a percentage. In high fuel price times it takes a smaller percentage. In these times, it would support the exchequer by increasing the fuel duty take at this time
0 -
0
-
....good thing I don't wear earrings then....malcolmg said:
Sounds nice and simple solution , what would they do with all the parasitic lawyers and accountants that do the tax evasion though.Malmesbury said:
If you are interested, my EvulMasterplan looks like thismalcolmg said:
For sure that would be a much better solutionMalmesbury said:
You should have a closer look - one of the problems is that the benefit cuts are not perfectly synchronised with earning some money. So you get a job and have to inform them to reduce benefits at the right moment (get that wrong and get in trouble). If the casual job ends, changing back to the old level of benefits is not automatic either.malcolmg said:
Still yet to see all those Brexiteers stampeding for the jobs they said the foreigners were stealing. Heard some clown on LBC the other day moaning that there was no way he was taking a job given if he did the government took 60p out of every pound off his benefits. His example was if he did 8 hours at £8 an hour he only got £3.20, arithmetic obviously not his strongpoint. However shows there are many fat and happy on their benefits and have no principles of trying to help themselves or understand that if they actually work they should get less benefits, shocking.OldKingCole said:
I thought I'd read that the Immigration Bit had been quietly dropped. For now, anyway.malcolmg said:
All the fruit picking and hotel cleaning jobs that they want.HYUFD said:
By next year the transition period will end and we will slam the door firmly shut on free movement from the EU to the UK, so working class Northern and Midlands Brexit and Boris voters will get what they want with Brexit done and Priti Patel 's points system replacing an open door to immigration from Eastern EuropeRochdalePioneers said:
You and I know that. I await HYUFD coming on to defend Keith Josephism because printing money makes Tory hedge fund donors poorer which is absolutely what all these new Tory voters in places like Stockton-on-Tees are concerned about.Philip_Thompson said:
So we print cash.RochdalePioneers said:
We will need to grow the economy and I take your point on tax squashing demand. However, the government - indeed all governments - are going to spend £fucktons. The UK is fiscally sovereign - we can print money which is a distinct advantage to France and Germany. So we either find people to sell our debt to - and there will be a lot of competition - or we print cash.HYUFD said:So the thread seems to focus on tax rises, from inheritance tax, to higher corporation and inheritance tax to even forcing the poorest to pay income tax again.
As Margaret Thatcher said 'No, No, No' we have a Tory government not a Labour government and I doubt even Starmer would go as far as the tax bombshells Cyclefree is floating here. Especially when we need to grow the economy once lockdown ends not hammer it with tax rises
Either way your No No No will very likely become Yes Yes Yes. The point where cash is needed to keep poor people from starving, you will I assume be saying no no no...
An awful suggestion normally especially when facing inflation. But we are facing a pandemic not seen for a century and deflation. So really right now printing money is the worst solution we can think of except all others.
I think this will quickly turn into rampant cakeism from HYUFDist loons. 'Yes you peons voted Tory and we thank you for that. We're going to enact policies which will sadly make some of you poor and hungry to make the fat and wealthy fatter and wealthier. They matter to us, you do not. Don't worry though - to pacify you we're going to say every day how we are controlling immigration by leaving the border wide open and how we're Getting Brexit Done. Whats that? You're having to eat grass? But you said that you would be *happy* to eat grass if thats what it took.'
After about 1 hour of looking at this issue, most people become a fan of a Universal Basic Income.
1) Abolish the tax free allowance for income tax and NI.
2) UBI of the former basic rate of tax paid by the government, monthly, directly to a specified account.
3) Automatic assumed payment of minimum NI included in that.
4) UBI can never be taxed, withdrawn etc. Everyone gets it
5) All earrings above UBI are taxed.
6) Additional benefits for disability etc. But these should be rare.0 -
Are you claiming it isn't an epidemic?isam said:0 -
Amazing so many left handers.Theuniondivvie said:These fcukers spend oodles on infra red sights and top of the range body armour but won't pay an alterations shop to take up the hems of their breeks (I'm assuming that they're too useless to do it themselves)?
https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1256184749351190528?s=200
