Will Gavin Williamson still be in the cabinet on 31/12/2021? – politicalbetting.com

gealbhan said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.

You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.

There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.

I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too

You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?

Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?

The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.

The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.

The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '

Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one

Precisely. The manifesto was utterly incoherent and the PM was allowed to get away with it.
It was a tax and spend programme that only outlined the spend bit. How it was to be funded was never questioned.

Exactly! Starmer is such a weak LOTO. Corbyn, Mcdon, etc would never have Boris to get away with that.

rottenborough said:

Sunak trying to ensure all the new money is not swallowed by the NHS leaving nothing for social care says Times.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

londonpubman said:

Philip_Thompson said:

londonpubman said:

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

ping said:

HYUFD said:

Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.

Indeed. It's a recipe for shit government.

HYUFD said:

As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.

Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD

The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).

I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.

It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI

If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?

This is even worse than May's dementia tax.

That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k

So attack point 2

Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.

As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise

1% on NI is no where near the amount required

To be honest it hardly touches the surface

There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS

The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed

We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed

Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.

If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.

If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.

I did not say it was chicken feed

I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care

It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment

Its not chicken feed?

Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.

If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.

The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care

I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care

I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about

If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.

If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?

Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information

As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge

I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary

If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.

That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..

Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.

Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.

I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element

The employee pays 1%

The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given

I am with @bigjohnowls on this

OMG my work is done

Goodnight

Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍

So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...

I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either?
I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either?
I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?

Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄

If the Employer's NI goes down it won't be passed on to the employees.

In a market where labour is scarce it might very well be

It is, I've had a meeting added by Japan to discuss potential reductions in pay rise budgets for tomorrow morning on the basis of this going ahead. Anyone who has worked in a management position knows that each role has a total available budget which includes the employer NI. Raising that just means the rest of the budget is lower which is why businesses are saying this will result in slower than expected pay rises, especially at the lower end of the market.

The way some people think that Employers NI as a direct tax on wages magically of all taxes doesn't affect prices - unlike fuel duty, tobacco duty or any other direct taxes, is simply unbelievable.

However the impact is not quite so immediate and direct.

No it may not be immediate, but the impact is ultimately every bit as real. Its a direct tax and direct taxes have consequences.

Yep. But how I'd put it is you are overplaying a card. It's an 8 of diamonds not a queen of spades.

gealbhan said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.

You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.

There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.

I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too

You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?

Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?

The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.

The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.

The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '

Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one

Precisely. The manifesto was utterly incoherent and the PM was allowed to get away with it.
It was a tax and spend programme that only outlined the spend bit. How it was to be funded was never questioned.

Exactly! Starmer is such a weak LOTO. Corbyn, Mcdon, etc would never have Boris to get away with that.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.

You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.

There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.

I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too

You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?

Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?

The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.

The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.

The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '

Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.

You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.

There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.

I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too

You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?

Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?

The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.

The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.

The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '

Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one

He might win the next election - indeed I fear so - but he won't be PM until 2054.

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.

The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.

Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.

Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.

America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.

We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.

Thanks for correcting me, as ever.

You're welcome.

Do you disagree with what I had to say?

I just disagree with your certainty that you're right about everything.

On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.

If you think that Trump was a capitalist I think that's part of the issue.

Trump is no capitalist. He's a mercantilist, there's a massive difference.

I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Aslan said:

Leon said:

Aslan said:

Leon said:

Aslan said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

An absolutely extraordinary and horrifying video of the streets of Philadelphia. Now.

What is happening to America?


https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1434518004876857347?s=21

Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.

But there's clearly a deeper problem.

American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.

"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.

Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy

What blathering drivel. Literally not a single Democratic bill since they have taken power has been on any of this stuff. It is right wingers working themselves up into a self righteous fit over a handful of anecdotes. And I actually live in an American city and I can assure you it is not self destructing. You remind me of one of those crazy Tea Partiers claiming that parts of London are no-go areas for non-Muslims.

You must have missed the zillions of videos out of Portland, and nyc, and Minneapolis, and Los Angeles, and so forth

This is why social media has been so damaging to politics. The human mind evolved in a period where people didn't experience many other people. Seeing five or six examples of something made sense to interpret it as "the way things are". But in a world of billions of people and social media types heavily willing to cherry pick, it completely screws up our assessment of things. 10 or 20 or even 50 examples from big cities where 150+ million Americans live is still a tiny and highly biased sample. And it seems so ridiculous to people who actually live in these cities.

Mate, I travel. I travel widely in America. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. In LA, San Fran, New Orleans and onwards

Shocking

You do need to go to rural America - to the near shantytowns in Colorado, New Mexico or West Virginia.

The poverty there is even worse, because at least there are jobs in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. What's the solution to people living in falling down trailers, with no education and no nearby jobs?

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.

You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.

There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.

I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too

You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?

Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?

The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.

The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.

The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '

Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one

You are absolutely right HY, I totally support you. What is the government supposed to do with massive waiting lists cause of Covid on top of already underfunded social care, just ignore it? You will find it an easier sell on the doorstep, people on here only think of what’s good or bad for them, not what they can do for their community, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, the essence of social care, the people in pain or danger on astronomical waiting lists.

Provide the money for the NHS and keep taxes low and grow the economy out of the economic mess.

If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then tax receipts will go up without any tax rises.

If there's an economic boom, if pay rises go up because of a competitive labour market, then the government will spend less on eg universal credit etc automatically without any tax rises or cuts to welfare.

Bit more complicated than that, though.

If pay goes up in the private sector, the government does gain through lower welfare bills and higher tax receipts. But it's pretty likely that the public sector pay bill will also go up, which swallows some-to-most-to-all of the gains. After all, most of the jobs that are left in the public sector are things that need doing, are mostly about people rather than machines or computers, and have limited potential to squeeze out game-changing efficiency gains. You can't put many extra children in each classroom, because there's no space. A care worker can't talk to two elderly people at once, let alone wash them simultaneously. A soldier can only fire one gun at a time. That sort of thing.

Prosperity is a good thing- it ought to be encouraged. But it's not without costs.

carnforth said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.

If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

And it may not matter to you if taxes go up if you're well off and counting down the days until you get an unearned windfall - but increasing taxes so that everyone pays even more every day isn't the solution.

You don't solve the unpopularity of one "tax" by jacking up another even worse tax instead.

There is no such thing as an 'unearned windfall' if you inherit an expensive house you have to pay inheritance tax on it for starters, however we shouldn't require those who inherit an average value house to have to pay a dementia tax on it too because their parent needed at home social care in the final years of their life.

I have already made clear I would oppose any NI rise over 1% too

You're such a flake. You'll oppose any NI rise over 1% too - hah! Why over 1%? What's so special about over 1%?

Is that like "you'll oppose any independence referendum beyond the next one" if Boris started hinting there'd be another?

The pledge was no rise in NI. Not a 1% (really 2%) rise, no rise.

The manifesto also promised an additional £1 billion a year for social care and to have raised NHS funding between 2018 and 2023 by 29%. The money for that does not grow on trees.

The manifesto also included a clear promise that 'nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. '

Boris has made clear he will not allow an indyref2 for 40 years since the 2014 one

He might win the next election - indeed I fear so - but he won't be PM until 2054.

Which is precisely why he set that timeframe

justin124 said:

justin124 said:

I see Lindsay is clamping down on the wearing of casual dress in the Commons chamber. I don't disagree with that myself - though do note that Denis Healey was wearing trainers there in his last Parliament - ie the early 1990s.

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

BBC leading on Sarah Harding.

Although she's been sick for a while, its still pretty shocking and horrible to have someone my own age die from natural causes like that.

Normally when a young celebrity dies its due to an accident/drugs/suicide or something else self-inflicted not cancer.

Horrible to think even in this day and age, even with the best medicine available, that just 39 can be a natural age for death of natural causes.

It is very sad indeed - though it takes my mind back to the last few months of my time at Primary School in the early Spring of 1965. A boy from my class had joined the school in October 1964 - Election Day as it happens! - from a Fleet Air Arm family. His father had been posted to RNAS Brawdy - HMS Goldcrest. He was 10 years old and very bright - and certainly destined to have no problem passing the 11plus to enter the local Grammar School. At the beginning of 1965 he was admitted to hospital for what appeared to be appendicitis - and in due course returned to school. Then , in February he had to return to hospital - and we never saw him again. He had developed some form of untreatable cancer and eventually passed away on ist April 1965. Just 10 years old - bless him - and what a waste! I often think of him.

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

rottenborough said:

Sunak trying to ensure all the new money is not swallowed by the NHS leaving nothing for social care says Times.


Good.

rottenborough said:

Sunak trying to ensure all the new money is not swallowed by the NHS leaving nothing for social care says Times.


Good.

Raising the obvious question. If it isn't, then where will it swallow from?

To be honest, one of the problems of NHS funding has always been the stop-go aspect. After years of cheese paring "Cost Improvement Plans" we get splashed a bunch of cash, with instant results wanted. It just doesn't work like that. It's the management by financial bulimia.

Far better would be gradual, planned permanent expansion. Invest in building operating theatres and postgraduate training and there will be real extra capacity. Or just splurge the money on overtime, WLI payments and private outsourcing, and end up with no extra capacity and exhausted burnt out staff. My money is on the latter...

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

londonpubman said:

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

ping said:

HYUFD said:

Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.

Indeed. It's a recipe for shit government.

HYUFD said:

As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.

Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD

The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).

I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.

It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI

If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?

This is even worse than May's dementia tax.

That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k

So attack point 2

Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.

As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise

1% on NI is no where near the amount required

To be honest it hardly touches the surface

There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS

The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed

We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed

Chicken Feed? Its monstrously high not chicken feed. For starters its a 2% rise since its 1% on both (and employers will immediately cut pay reviews to compensate). But then of course its in reality much more than that.

If you're on merely basic rate tax and NI then already you're facing 20% tax and 12% NI so 32% of your income is already going in tax. Cut your take home pay by a further 2% and that's not 2/100 its 2/68 that you're losing - so that's 3% of your income gone immediately.

If you're on higher rate tax then you're currently losing 42% of your income in tax, so cut by a further 2% and that's 2/58 or 3.5% of income lost.

I did not say it was chicken feed

I said it will not go anywhere near the need, especially if CHC becomes the norm for social care

It does appear that those who are most angry are those who are in well paid employment

Its not chicken feed?

Sorry I must have gotten confused by the line "We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed" because that made me think that you were saying that a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed.

If care homes become the norm then people should use their savings first to pay for it. Which yes, may mean their homes.

The present proposal seems to include the first £60 -£80,000 to be paid by the pensioner in need of care

I believe that is reasonable and in most cases will cover the cost depending on time in care

I am not convinced on the NI increase but you do seem to be exercised by it and the only thing I can say is beware that if labour were in charge of the economy and taxation you would have much more to worry about

If the Tories intend to cut people's take home pay by 3% (which is what a 1% NI increase works out to) then I couldn't care less if Boris or Starmer is in charge.

If this goes ahead I'm not voting Tory. What's the point?

Actually I believe the 60-80,000 will be protected above which the pensioner pays and am sorry if I gave the wrong information

As far as your voting intention is concerned that is for you, but if @bigjohnowls figures are correct you do seem to be exaggerating the charge

I must admit I did not know NI does not trigger in on all salary

If the change is £207 a year - that's about £10bn which is near where near enough money to fund what is required.

That £10bn keeps the NHS going, it doesn't solve Social care which is a £20bn issue..

Its not £207 per year, BJO was deliberately dishonest (like Brown and if this goes ahead Boris) and used a 1% figure not a 2% figure.

Its a 2% tax. So its £414 per year on a £30k salary - more on higher salaries.

I am sorry but you are conflating the tax by including the employer element

The employee pays 1%

The employer may negotiate their rise into pay negotiations but that is not a given

I am with @bigjohnowls on this

OMG my work is done

Goodnight

Employer's NI has no link with employees salary and never has had. I think I am agreeing with Big G and Big John 👍

So employers don't take Employer's NI, a direct tax on wages, into account when setting wages? Suuuureeee ...

I suppose you think Fuel Duty has no link with Fuel Prices either?
I suppose you think Tobacco Duty has no link with Tobacco Prices either?
I suppose you think Alcohol Duty has no link with Alcohol Prices either?

Why just because NI is called Employer's NI, instead of Employer's Duty, does it uniquely not affect prices? 🙄

Wages are set by the market. If you don’t pay enough you don’t get staff. People have been seeing that recently.

Social costs are on top. If a company can’t afford a fully loaded cost they don’t hire anyone.

If social costs go down wages do not go up automatically

Not automatically no, anymore than if petrol duty goes down the price of petrol goes down automatically.

But the market does take into account taxes and anyone who thinks it doesn't is either pushing an agenda or in denial.

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

On the subject of inheritance and social care, I take a pretty firm line.

And it is not one driven by being a "conservative" or a "libertarian" or anything like that. It is one based on simple morality.

It is wrong (as in morally wrong) to force young people without inheritances to pay more than they already do, so that the wealthy can pass on the family home to their children.

The reason we save, the reason we have pensions, is so we can support ourselves when we can no longer work.

We're supposed to design society so that everyone has a stake, and everyone can buy a home and save.

Last point, and this is incredibly important: one person's tax break is another's tax burden. If you say that Joe is not paying for his social care so his kids can inherit his house, you are implicitly saying that Sally and Jane and Mark (who may not have wealthy parents) will be paying for it.

That is morally repugnant, and people who claim to be Christians and moral beings, cannot support it.

In your view, not mine. As a conservative preservation of wealth is the most important value of all economically and most young people will get an inheritance now whether from grandparents or parents as most of the population are homeowners.

Indeed it is precisely that inheritance or gift from parents which is the only way those on average incomes in London and most of the Home Counties can afford to buy property and get a stake and assets given the average property and London and the Home Counties is over 4.5 times combined average incomes.

It is also a perfectly Christian value to support the family and your children

You completely fail to understand the nature of conservatism. Not a surprise since I believe you were born after Thatcher was in power.

Conservatism is about the preservation of the best in society. It accepts that society will change over time, but it likes to slow the pace of change so that it can be executed in a cautious and deliberate matter. It seeks a society in which everyone has a stake and everyone can and does make a contribution.

There are those in society who, by good fortune and/or hard work, will have greater material wealth. But with wealth comes responsibility to contribute.

There is nothing in that about hoarding money for yourself and your immediate family.

No I was born when Thatcher was in power.

As you are often more a 19th century Liberal than a traditional Tory no surprise at your comments but the fact remains the whole point of the Tory Party has to been to preserve estates and wealth from its original origins as the party of the landed gentry on.

However the whole point of the argument that people should be able to sell their main asset, their property, to fund social care at home in the last years of their life is not merely a contribution, it is loss of most of their estate and an asset which they built up to pass to their children.

We are happy for other peoples' taxes to pay for those with property to use the NHS or state education, no reason the same principle could not also apply to at home social care

Floater said:

I remember a couple of people getting excited over this story

https://twitter.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1434520528690110472

Fake news!!

Rolling Stone uses a quote from a doctor to manufacture an ultra viral story. One phone call would've confirmed the doctor's story was false. Apparently, clicks are more important than basic journalism.

Also, the photo they used is from January

eek said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Meanwhile, putting eggs to one side briefly, over at U-turn news...

Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
I: Tory panic over tax grab plan to fund social care #TomorrowsPapersToday

Time to see what Boris is really made of. Was he just kite flying? Will he come out and fight for the plan? Does he have a backup ready to go?

I don't agree, generally, that you should try a policy simply for the purpose of trying to do something. But on this occasion it's been left long enough that trying something, anything, is probably the right move, if only to get things moving.

Yep a land value tax replacing the social care preset part of the Council tax

Let's be frank we've now been discussing this for 3 days here and it's the only thing no one has not found big issues with

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.

The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.

Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.

Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.

America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.

We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.

Thanks for correcting me, as ever.

You're welcome.

Do you disagree with what I had to say?

I just disagree with your certainty that you're right about everything.

On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.

If you think that Trump was a capitalist I think that's part of the issue.

Trump is no capitalist. He's a mercantilist, there's a massive difference.

I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.

Its very long-winded to get into the difference between mercantilism and capitalism but for a starter there's this page that explains the difference in rather simple terms: https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-capitalism-and-mercantilism/

Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.

And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.

Thanks.

Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?

Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?

And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?

Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?

You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.

Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.

Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.

Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.

Has anyone here seen Ricky!

Fascinating story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo

Aslan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.

The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.

Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.

Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.

America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.

We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.

Thanks for correcting me, as ever.

You're welcome.

Do you disagree with what I had to say?

I just disagree with your certainty that you're right about everything.

On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.

If you think that Trump was a capitalist I think that's part of the issue.

Trump is no capitalist. He's a mercantilist, there's a massive difference.

I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.

Its very long-winded to get into the difference between mercantilism and capitalism but for a starter there's this page that explains the difference in rather simple terms: https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-capitalism-and-mercantilism/

Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.

And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.

Thanks.

Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?

Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?

And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?

Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?

You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.

Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.

Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.

Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.

Has anyone here seen Ricky!

Fascinating story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo

This has been an interesting discussion. After that, do you agree that Trump is more a Mercantilist than a Capitalist?

Trump was a bit of a crap mercantilist, given he increased the US trade deficit.

Aslan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Aslan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.

I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.

John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.

I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.

Because his show became every single episode, 45 mins, this week ORANGE MAN BAD...anything else....no...ORANGE MAN BAD...well tonight's focus is on the topic of x....5 secs later ORANGE MAN BAD has done something BAD about this....but this problem has existed in America for many years...yes but ORANGE MAN BAD is making it worse.

It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.

Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..

I mean Donald Trump was regularly doing many bad things every week. What is the media supposed to do, not cover half the fuck-ups?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Aslan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Aslan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another thing that a lot of people don't realise about the rural poor in the US, how many of them live in trailer parks.

I can't remember the exact stat of the top of my head, but it is a lot larger than the comical perception of a few toothless weirdos.

John Oliver, before he became ORANGE MAN BAD, every episode of his show, did an episode. And again it reinforces poverty, as you get shafted every which way, because most people are just renting a space, you can't get a mortgage etc.

I mean the Orange Man is bad, so I don't see why people get so upset when people highlight why.

Because his show became every single episode, 45 mins, this week ORANGE MAN BAD...anything else....no...ORANGE MAN BAD...well tonight's focus is on the topic of x....5 secs later ORANGE MAN BAD has done something BAD about this....but this problem has existed in America for many years...yes but ORANGE MAN BAD is making it worse.

It made the show very tedious. Not really very funny either, because part of the secret of comedy is saying something you weren't expecting the comedian to say.

Just like CNN stopped being a news network and became "commenting on Donald Trumps latest offensive tweet for the next 24hrs, until he writes another one". Any other news out there in the world today...nope...just Donald Trump tweeting something offensive or nonsensical...again..

I mean Donald Trump was regularly doing many bad things every week. What is the media supposed to do, not cover half the fuck-ups?

The interesting thing about John Oliver's show is in the past his team used to pick up stories that really weren't part of the mainstream conversion e.g. the trailer park issue. Nobody is talking about how screwed people in trailer parks are getting. That was super interesting, expanding ones knowledge, as you really didn't know what was going to be on, actually where the problem first came from and why it is now a major issue.

And normally they pick stories that are quite involved, and require 20 mins to explain all the ins and out (and it goes way beyond the POTUS).

Since Trump has gone, they are starting to return to these kind of stories.

gealbhan said:

rcs1000 said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.

The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.

Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.

Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.

America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.

We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.

Thanks for correcting me, as ever.

You're welcome.

Do you disagree with what I had to say?

I just disagree with your certainty that you're right about everything.

On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.

If you think that Trump was a capitalist I think that's part of the issue.

Trump is no capitalist. He's a mercantilist, there's a massive difference.

I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.

Its very long-winded to get into the difference between mercantilism and capitalism but for a starter there's this page that explains the difference in rather simple terms: https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-capitalism-and-mercantilism/

Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.

And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.

Thanks.

Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?

Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?

And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?

Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?

You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.

Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.

Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.

Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.

Has anyone here seen Ricky!

Fascinating story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo

David Ricardo is - iirc - much more readable than Adam Smith.

He seems shaped by many things, which is a positive. Jewish immigrant, whilst young disowned by family for running off with a Quaker (que joke about sowing oats) and becomes Unitarian. But why is he sitting as a Whig not a Tory?

theProle said:

On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?

To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.

The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.

More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector.
We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.

rcs1000 said:

theProle said:

On the social care thing, does anyone know the average lifetime cost of social care for an individual?

To my mind it's fair to socialise the costs of care so that it averages out across the population, rather than those who have the misfortune to spend years in a home losing every penny whilst others luck out and never have to spend a bean. What's not fair is to then dump this cost on those in work.

The obvious fix for this is some sort of insurance, with the option for the premium to come from one's estate, or pension pot.

More generally - everyone seems to think we need the government to do more/spend more, thus we'll all have to pay more tax. What's happened to the normal conservative view that the state is too big, taxes make us all poorer, and so the cure is the state should do a lot less. Every branch of government I've ever dealt with has been horrifically inefficient in a way that wouldn't last 5 minutes in the private sector.
We could probably sack 50% of the civil service for no loss whatsoever - the only problem is stopping the entrenched interests who will fight tooth and nail to protect their empires and thus insist on sacking only the useful staff in order to "prove" that such a reduction is impossible.

It is worth remembering, though, that very little of government spending is on civil servants.

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

MrEd said:

Leon said:

Aslan said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

An absolutely extraordinary and horrifying video of the streets of Philadelphia. Now.

What is happening to America?


https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1434518004876857347?s=21

Los Angeles has had an extraordinary explosion of homelessness in the last two years. Covid is clearly part of it, as is the habit of some cities (Colorado Springs, I'm looking at you) at hiring buses for their own homeless and giving them money and sending them to Los Angeles.

But there's clearly a deeper problem.

American political parties are too busy fighting each other over things that don't matter to most people, and have left this enormous gap for someone who is worried about real problems.

"Fighting each other". The reality is that the US has one fairly normal political party and on extremist cult. The extremist cult doesn't care about societal problems because it is an extremist cult. The normal political party has to spend all its time focusing on the problems caused by the extremist cult (like refusing to get vaccinations during a pandemic, or opposing any attempt at universal healthcare, or invading the US seat of government and then thwarting any investigation.

Bollocks. The Democrats are banging on about Wokeness and CRT and sending kids in to Portland to riot, even as half of American cities are already self destructing. The entire country is spiralling into dysfunction and both political sides are to blame. It is a tragedy

Don’t bother @Leon, you are wasting your time

Leave it, Donald, they don't appreciate you and they're not worth it!

The wisest words I think I’ve ever seen you post on here @kinablu.

Right, off for another round of golf before lunch with Melania and that Russian hooker from the Steele dossier who p1ssed all over me

I don't think anyone has ever alleged Donald was peed on. I think the allegation was that he saw hookers pee on each other.

Re Trump concerns this doesn't make my top 20.

Yokes said:

Afghanistan

Mainline US media is now reporting on some charter aircraft stuck at Mazar i Sharif airport. They have been stuck there for days. Also there are US citizens and eligible Afghans who are meant to be getting on those flights stuck at the airport.

So why cant they just fly? Stories have it the Taliban have refused, which seems fairly much accepted based on sources in the US government.

Why have they refused? Some stories say that the US State Department hasnt done its job in doing its documentation to get the fights cleared by the Taliban. Others say the US State Department has no role or much specific knowledge of what are private charter flights or the people awaiting to fly whilst acknowledging that US citizens and eligible Afghans are at least meant to be on those flights . Others say its a pay to fly situation with the Taliban demanding some concessions from the US government which makes it an effective hostage situation.

If this drags out a few days more without resolution, its unlikely to remain a relatively low profile story.

Andy_JS said:

O/T

"Nicholas Lezard
The boys who never grow up: Sad Little Men, by Richard Beard, reviewed
A furious denunciation of the private boarding school system which produces damaged men prone to dissembling, hypocrisy, snobbery – and a blind belief in their right to run the country" (£)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-boys-who-never-grow-up-sad-little-men-by-richard-beard-reviewed

Nigelb said:

Good quote in the Guardian.

Johnson is said to be wary of making enemies and had been inclined to delay change until after Cop26 in Glasgow. “He does not like an ambitious cabinet, he always says he likes ‘old tired lions – so I can be king lion’,” the senior Tory said.…

OldKingCole said:

Scott_xP said:

Nigelb said:

“He does not like an ambitious cabinet"

He has an ambitious cabinet.

They are also all incompetent

I'd worry if Cabinet members were NOT ambitious; not necessarily to be PM, but to somehow leave their mark on history as the person who did whatever.

And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Scott_xP said:

Nigelb said:

“He does not like an ambitious cabinet"

He has an ambitious cabinet.

They are also all incompetent

I'd worry if Cabinet members were NOT ambitious; not necessarily to be PM, but to somehow leave their mark on history as the person who did whatever.

And good morning everyone; is this the year of a second summer? 14degC and a blue sky, although there is some cloud about. Can England bat through the day and defeat India? Or are they going to do what India did last time, and, after a good start, peter out?

Gavin Williamson has already succeeded admirably in that regard. Perhaps he could now move on content to be the first defence Secretary fired for leaking classified information and the first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act?

I like that thought..... first education Secretary to be personally sued under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Where did that come from?

DavidL said:

paulyork64 said:

Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?

Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.

Not seen the details but that sounds like the position in Scotland where social care is "free" but you still pay the accommodation part of your costs on a means tested basis.

On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.

paulyork64 said:

DavidL said:

paulyork64 said:

Is there a mechanism whereby the 8% pension increase could be allowed through but the beneficiaries of that pay all the extra money needed for the increase in Social Care spending?

Listening to BBC this morning it sounds like the proposed £100k cap excludes the "hotel" aspect of your care. So is the care recipient still liable for 100% of that? The cap that isnt.

Not seen the details but that sounds like the position in Scotland where social care is "free" but you still pay the accommodation part of your costs on a means tested basis.

On the more general question I would have thought that the answer was no unless there was a more complicated package which would involve removing the exemption from NI for pensioners etc. I see no sign that this (necessary) step is being contemplated.

I'm sure you're right and it's not being considered.

Would removing NI exemption for pensioners only affect employment income anyway?

I'd do that but also, short of a root and branch tax overhaul, try and find a revenue neutral (for workers) decrease in NI and increase in IT that would shift more of the tax take from workers to the retired.

rcs1000 said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

gealbhan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

On the USA, it seems to me that nobody is stating the bleeding obvious. Its massive social problems (drugs, homelessness, crime etc.) are hardly surprising when such a rich country tolerates, or even encourages, the huge, huge disparities in wealth, income, and life chances that are so pervasive. It's free market capitalism on steroids, dog eat dog, and of course there are going to be many losers as well as glorious winners. It's the most uncivilised developed country in the world, in the sense that its inequalities are just so grotesque.

The American Dream is great for the winners, but a Nightmare for the losers.

Its not capitalism that's the issue, its also (sadly) democracy combined with racism.

Its not simply that the market is free - it actually isn't all that much in much of the USA. The state is a lot bigger in places than people realise in this country over there and the state is abused and used by the majority to take the advantages of society for themselves and to shove problems upon the minority.

America has had unspoken segregation and allowed the white majority areas to get better education, better transport, better etc while transport, education etc in the "slum" black areas have been allowed to fester.

We speak sometimes in this country of a postcode lottery, but there is nothing here like there is in the USA. It really is another world - and its not the market doing it.

Thanks for correcting me, as ever.

You're welcome.

Do you disagree with what I had to say?

I just disagree with your certainty that you're right about everything.

On the substance, yes I do disagree. I agree about the importance you attach to racial inequality, but unlike you I see this as merely another dimension of class relations in a capitalist society. It's greed for profit that lies at the root of the USA's gross inequality, and because of its particular history that's often expressed through the prism of race. But many millions of White Americans are dispossessed too. You may have noticed they voted for Trump, the arch capitalist, against their objective self interest.

If you think that Trump was a capitalist I think that's part of the issue.

Trump is no capitalist. He's a mercantilist, there's a massive difference.

I’m not saying you are wrong, but it will be educational for you to expand into proof for the difference, examples of what makes the difference that makes it look like trump is.

Its very long-winded to get into the difference between mercantilism and capitalism but for a starter there's this page that explains the difference in rather simple terms: https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-capitalism-and-mercantilism/

Read through that and ask yourself which Trump is. I would 100% say mercantilist not capitalist.

And his mercantilist attitude is pervasive through his politics and his business dealings too. A capitalist believes that trade is good because both parties gain through the exchange - a mercantilist believes one party is the winner and the other party the loser and that is Trump's view to everything in life. He's always trying to screw the other parties, whether it be his views on tariffs (completely mercantilist), his business dealings were he's notorious for screwing over his contractors etc (similar attitude) or his entire political career.

Thanks.

Once upon a time the UK was driven by mercantilism? 17th 18th into the 19th century?

Adam Smith, and the Manchester School, thought of today as slapping down Marx and Communism, really began opposing mercantilism and feudalism?

And originally, say 1848, the Young Hegelians (Marx) fought side by side with Adam Smith against feudalism and mercantilism?

Obviously correct me where I am wrong, but if what I said was right, what was Smith proposing as something more preferable to Mercantilism?

You're not wrong. Capitalism was an antithesis to Mercantilism, not an antithesis to Marxism.

Mercantilism had largely died a death, but its making a comeback and is represented by people like Trump.

Smith proposed free trade as opposed to the restrictions of Mercantilism. Unlike the Mercantilists (which includes Trump) he understood that both parties in a trade were better off due to the trade. The Mercantilists (and Trump etc) took an attitude that one party won and the other lost.

Though Smith gets the attention even more important than him was possibly David Ricardo in the development of Capitalist thinking against Mercantilist thinking.

Has anyone here seen Ricky!

Fascinating story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo

David Ricardo is - iirc - much more readable than Adam Smith.

gealbhan said:

kinabalu said:

gealbhan said:

kinabalu said:

carnforth said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Re inheritance tax and social care, I think parents with children should get sent a two part choice:

Make an 'x' in one box only:

[ ] I am a selfish bastard and do not care whether I leave anything for my children. Please liquidate my assets to pay for my social care.

[ ] I am a kind and noble person and wish to help my kids out. Please send me along to Dignitas when I get a bit doddery, so my kids can inherit.

This is the free market solution.

I believe in inheritance and the sanctity of life, so clearly not the solution for me or genuine conservatives who are not mere free market libertarians masquerading as conservatives

So, you think we should have a third box?

[ ] Sling me out on the street to beg for food, so that my children can inherit.

Not a bad suggestion @HYUFD. Maintains the sanctity of life, while preserving inheritance. A proper conservative solution.

No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it

Why should the average person pay for my mother’s care so I can inherit her house (although it has a rather nice garden that I would very much like to inherit)?

It may not matter much for you given you are a multimillionaire with I believe more than one home, it may well matter to a family on an average income whose sole remaining parent owns their own home which has a value which is modest but over £100,000 and would have been hit by May's dementia tax.

It was May's inability to understand that, as she and her husband were also multimillionaires, which cost her her majority in 2017

No, it was the act of dumping the fait accompli on the public in a manifesto without preparing the ground. No-one was sure if they were better off or worse off, so they were repelled.

If the policy had been introduced within a parliament rather than at an election, it would have been debated in the press and amoung the public, just as Boris’ policy is now, and it would not have been so toxic.

Yes, it needed the pitch to be rolled and she didn't even get the roller out of the shed. I liked the policy.

“ No, I believe the state should fund at home care so your family does not need to sell your home on death to pay for it”

How are you going to field the Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do response when it comes at you? You have prepared an answer already?

I have my box of tools, yes. 🙂

I was actually aiming that at HY whose quote is from the thread.

“ Expanding the state further to protect private assets has got to be the wrong thing to do “ has been said from IDS to Eye or.

The table posted here yesterday, two beautiful symmetrical crosses the last two elections explains the governments thinking.

But what joins it’s all up on one page?