Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Gavin Williamson has done another whoopsie – politicalbetting.com

123457

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited September 8
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    No I am not, 1.25% NI for the NHS and social care is hardly impoverishment.

    You don't pay NI or income tax for earnings under £10,000 either.

    NI should be kept and ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and healthcare as it was originally set up to do.

    You are also wrong. Most children and grandchildren of property owners in the South and London on average incomes need an inheritance to buy property, they are not asset wise well off. Most under 40s in the North and Midlands however can buy their own properties even on an average income with few problems and without assistance as house prices are so much cheaper north of the Watford gap
    For someone earning £25k with kids losing £200 from their pay is not going to be easy to afford.

    Honestly, it's like talking to a brick wall. You epitomise the current Tories, selfish and clueless.
    If you are on £25k in the North you can afford your own home with or without that £200. You and your kids also use the NHS it will go to.

    If you are on £25k in the South you cannot afford your own home with or without that £200 without an inheritance
    Ummm.

    In Greater Manchester, there aren't many three bedroom homes available for a four multiple on that £25k income.

    In fact, in the whole of Greater Manchester, I find exactly three properties. And it's fair to say they require extensive modernisation.

    https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/houses/manchester/?beds_min=3&q=Manchester, Greater Manchester&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=home
    In the context of the example it was a couple with kids, so say that is 2 incomes of £25k or so ie £50k x 4.5 = £225k plus 10% deposit saved and they could easily afford a 2 or 3 bed in most of Manchester in a way they could not in London
  • AslanAslan Posts: 596
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    You and PT have won me round. I have had mixed feelings about this because I do think a tax rise is needed and admire Boris for having the balls to do it. On the other hand it does seem a bit unfair the way it has been done.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,359
    edited September 8
    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's game over for Merkel's party. There isn't enough time for a recovery IMO.

    Their problem is that they're no longer Merkel's party. I think they'd be solid if she was sticking around.
    They are very much Merkel's party, Laschet is her anointed heir.

    Had they been led by the more conservative Soder by contrast polls show they would be doing rather better
    So what? People voted and would still vote for Merkel, they won't for Laschet no matter how anointed he is.
    Laschet's policies are virtually identical to Merkel's and Merkel had already led the Union to its lowest voteshare since 1949 in 2017.

    Expect the Union to move to the right in opposition and away from Merkelism
    Is the the CSU's vote under Söder going to go up this election?
    No but it will still be far higher than the CDU's in any other state in Germany and Soder is not the chancellor candidate even in Bavaria, Laschet is
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,893
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just catching up, but I thought I ought to welcome @Philip_Thompson to the club.

    I am sure Sir Ed is preparing both your gold card LD memberships as we speak
    Why do you think that? It's conceivable that I might vote LibDem at the next election, but only because after 50-odd years of voting Conservative, they might be a less awful alternative than the lot who have taken over the Conservative Party. Or I might vote Labour, although they don't seem to be a serious alternative at the moment. I doubt if I'll abstain - after all, an important reason why I was a Conservative in the first place was because I abhor the avoidance of difficult decisions - but I'm certainly not going to be supporting any of the current parties with any enthusiasm.
    If the LibDem parliamentary party consisted mostly of people like Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper and Alistair Carmichael, then I don't think it would be a very hard choice.

    Sadly...
    Could I recommend voting in a few more then?
  • Will the last member of the PB Tory club please remember to turn the lights off.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited September 8
    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    Absolutely Charles, well said.

    Plus it is going to the NHS after Covid, a worthy cause as well as social care
  • AslanAslan Posts: 596
    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    Most people paying NI are not incredibly wealthy.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,140
    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    I don't want to the ladder to be pulled up. That's what the government is doing by attacking working people to subsidise rich old people.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,901
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    No I am not, 1.25% NI for the NHS and social care is hardly impoverishment.

    You don't pay NI or income tax for earnings under £10,000 either.

    NI should be kept and ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and healthcare as it was originally set up to do.

    You are also wrong. Most children and grandchildren of property owners in the South and London on average incomes need an inheritance to buy property, they are not asset wise well off. Most under 40s in the North and Midlands however can buy their own properties even on an average income with few problems and without assistance as house prices are so much cheaper north of the Watford gap
    For someone earning £25k with kids losing £200 from their pay is not going to be easy to afford.

    Honestly, it's like talking to a brick wall. You epitomise the current Tories, selfish and clueless.
    If you are on £25k in the North you can afford your own home with or without that £200. You and your kids also use the NHS it will go to.

    If you are on £25k in the South you cannot afford your own home with or without that £200 without an inheritance
    Ummm.

    In Greater Manchester, there aren't many three bedroom homes available for a four multiple on that £25k income.

    In fact, in the whole of Greater Manchester, I find exactly three properties. And it's fair to say they require extensive modernisation.

    https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/houses/manchester/?beds_min=3&q=Manchester, Greater Manchester&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=home
    In the context of the example it was a couple with kids, so say that is 2 incomes of £25k or so ie £50k x 4.5 = £225k plus 10% deposit saved and they could easily afford a 2 or 3 bed in most of Manchester in a way they could not in London
    Ah, this is some new definition of "could easily" that I was not previously aware of.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223

    Will the last member of the PB Tory club please remember to turn the lights off.....

    We have gained BJO to the club, it is not all leakage
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,140
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just catching up, but I thought I ought to welcome @Philip_Thompson to the club.

    I am sure Sir Ed is preparing both your gold card LD memberships as we speak
    Why do you think that? It's conceivable that I might vote LibDem at the next election, but only because after 50-odd years of voting Conservative, they might be a less awful alternative than the lot who have taken over the Conservative Party. Or I might vote Labour, although they don't seem to be a serious alternative at the moment. I doubt if I'll abstain - after all, an important reason why I was a Conservative in the first place was because I abhor the avoidance of difficult decisions - but I'm certainly not going to be supporting any of the current parties with any enthusiasm.
    If the LibDem parliamentary party consisted mostly of people like Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper and Alistair Carmichael, then I don't think it would be a very hard choice.

    Sadly...
    Could I recommend voting in a few more then?
    What if they turn out to be more like the crazy ones?
  • Denmark proposes making migrants work 37 hours a week to earn benefits because 'there are too many, especially with non-Western backgrounds, who do not have a job'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9969873/Denmark-proposes-making-migrants-work-37-hours-week-earn-welfare-benefits.html

    I presume Denmark will be off the left leaning liberal types example of a country we should be copying all of their policies....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,901
    Aslan said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    You and PT have won me round. I have had mixed feelings about this because I do think a tax rise is needed and admire Boris for having the balls to do it. On the other hand it does seem a bit unfair the way it has been done.
    Why don't you fuck off and join the Liberal Democrats.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,359
    Aslan said:

    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    Most people paying NI are not incredibly wealthy.
    The people on this board are
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,140
    HYUFD said:

    Will the last member of the PB Tory club please remember to turn the lights off.....

    We have gained BJO to the club, it is not all leakage
    He's never going to vote conservative. Not even after the heat death of the universe.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,901
    edited September 8
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just catching up, but I thought I ought to welcome @Philip_Thompson to the club.

    I am sure Sir Ed is preparing both your gold card LD memberships as we speak
    Why do you think that? It's conceivable that I might vote LibDem at the next election, but only because after 50-odd years of voting Conservative, they might be a less awful alternative than the lot who have taken over the Conservative Party. Or I might vote Labour, although they don't seem to be a serious alternative at the moment. I doubt if I'll abstain - after all, an important reason why I was a Conservative in the first place was because I abhor the avoidance of difficult decisions - but I'm certainly not going to be supporting any of the current parties with any enthusiasm.
    If the LibDem parliamentary party consisted mostly of people like Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper and Alistair Carmichael, then I don't think it would be a very hard choice.

    Sadly...
    Could I recommend voting in a few more then?
    What if they turn out to be more like the crazy ones?
    Maybe when you meet them, say something like:

    "That Wera really knows what going on with 5G masts, right?"

    And if they look horrified, then they're probably alright. And if they agree with her, then you should probably panic.
  • Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    NI kicks in for working people at less than £10,000 per annum and with no inheritance to rely upon.

    That's not my definition of incredibly wealthy and successful.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited September 8
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    No I am not, 1.25% NI for the NHS and social care is hardly impoverishment.

    You don't pay NI or income tax for earnings under £10,000 either.

    NI should be kept and ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and healthcare as it was originally set up to do.

    You are also wrong. Most children and grandchildren of property owners in the South and London on average incomes need an inheritance to buy property, they are not asset wise well off. Most under 40s in the North and Midlands however can buy their own properties even on an average income with few problems and without assistance as house prices are so much cheaper north of the Watford gap
    For someone earning £25k with kids losing £200 from their pay is not going to be easy to afford.

    Honestly, it's like talking to a brick wall. You epitomise the current Tories, selfish and clueless.
    If you are on £25k in the North you can afford your own home with or without that £200. You and your kids also use the NHS it will go to.

    If you are on £25k in the South you cannot afford your own home with or without that £200 without an inheritance
    Ummm.

    In Greater Manchester, there aren't many three bedroom homes available for a four multiple on that £25k income.

    In fact, in the whole of Greater Manchester, I find exactly three properties. And it's fair to say they require extensive modernisation.

    https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/houses/manchester/?beds_min=3&q=Manchester, Greater Manchester&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=home
    In the context of the example it was a couple with kids, so say that is 2 incomes of £25k or so ie £50k x 4.5 = £225k plus 10% deposit saved and they could easily afford a 2 or 3 bed in most of Manchester in a way they could not in London
    Ah, this is some new definition of "could easily" that I was not previously aware of.
    Maybe not in the most chic areas of central Manchester but in most of Greater Manchester they could, in Leigh for example the average semi detached only costs £168,849
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/leigh.html?country=england&referrer=landingPage&searchLocation=Leigh
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited September 8
    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,314
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    No I am not, 1.25% NI for the NHS and social care is hardly impoverishment.

    You don't pay NI or income tax for earnings under £10,000 either.

    NI should be kept and ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and healthcare as it was originally set up to do.

    You are also wrong. Most children and grandchildren of property owners in the South and London on average incomes need an inheritance to buy property, they are not asset wise well off. Most under 40s in the North and Midlands however can buy their own properties even on an average income with few problems and without assistance as house prices are so much cheaper north of the Watford gap
    Class 1 NI starts at a threshold of £6240 annual income.
    He's rounding up to the nearest 10k.
    No, he's actually right. Class 1 NI starts at £184 a week (£9568 a year).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509
    rcs1000 said:

    I think we need to coin a new catch phrase for right of centre people who criticise the government in any way. I was thinking of

    "Why don't you fuck off and join the Liberal Democrats"

    No insult should stoop so low....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    Will the last member of the PB Tory club please remember to turn the lights off.....

    We have gained BJO to the club, it is not all leakage
    He's never going to vote conservative. Not even after the heat death of the universe.
    BJO hates Starmer, I think he might, he doesn't mind Boris
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,621
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's game over for Merkel's party. There isn't enough time for a recovery IMO.

    Their problem is that they're no longer Merkel's party. I think they'd be solid if she was sticking around.
    They are very much Merkel's party, Laschet is her anointed heir.

    Had they been led by the more conservative Soder by contrast polls show they would be doing rather better
    So what? People voted and would still vote for Merkel, they won't for Laschet no matter how anointed he is.
    Laschet's policies are virtually identical to Merkel's and Merkel had already led the Union to its lowest voteshare since 1949 in 2017.

    Expect the Union to move to the right in opposition and away from Merkelism
    Is the the CSU's vote under Söder going to go up this election?
    No but it will still be far higher than the CDU's in any other state in Germany and Soder is not the chancellor candidate even in Bavaria, Laschet is
    Aye, Söder's the man alright.

    '2018 Bavarian state election
    The CSU recorded its worst result since 1950 with 37% of votes, a decline of over ten percentage points.'

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited September 8
    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,140
    Charles said:

    Aslan said:

    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    Most people paying NI are not incredibly wealthy.
    The people on this board are
    The top rate of tax in the UK is now 48.25%, the UK is a high tax country now.

    Even ignoring the top end, people on average wages are going to be paying an additional £300-400 per year while people who derive income from property or pensions won't, regardless of their actual earnings. Specifically including unearned income from dividends within the scope of this tax but excluding unearned income from property is a choice the government has made to protect old rich people.

    We're making the working poor worse off while old rich people will pay nothing. In any reasonable society it's wrong.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,967

    Denmark proposes making migrants work 37 hours a week to earn benefits because 'there are too many, especially with non-Western backgrounds, who do not have a job'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9969873/Denmark-proposes-making-migrants-work-37-hours-week-earn-welfare-benefits.html

    I presume Denmark will be off the left leaning liberal types example of a country we should be copying all of their policies....

    The incredible thing is that is the Danish Social Democrats.

    The party of Helle Thorning-Schmidt (aka Mrs Stephen Kinnock).
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's game over for Merkel's party. There isn't enough time for a recovery IMO.

    Well to be fair they have been in power for 16 years, it is hardly that surprising they cannot sustain that forever
    Your party will have been in power for 14 years by the next election, while you cheer the loss of voters . . . 🤔
    "Your party". Brilliant, PT. Never thought I'd see the day.
    He voted for Blair and Farage, it is nothing new
    I don't care. It still gives me great pleasure to see Tories/ex-Tories fighting tooth and nail.

    The Labour Party is a sea of tranquility by comparison at the moment (especially since one remaining Corbynite jumped ship earlier).
    *populist

    He was never a Corbynite, just a populist. I maintain many of this lot are not true Labour
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,825
    edited September 8

    Denmark proposes making migrants work 37 hours a week to earn benefits because 'there are too many, especially with non-Western backgrounds, who do not have a job'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9969873/Denmark-proposes-making-migrants-work-37-hours-week-earn-welfare-benefits.html

    I presume Denmark will be off the left leaning liberal types example of a country we should be copying all of their policies....

    Sounds like compulsory full-time jobs and skills training for those unemployed for a certain length of time. Which, for immigrants, included language classes. Similar to that of the last Labour government. I know. I used to work in it.
    Which the coalition slashed the funding for to the ground. Then moaned they didn't have any skills, and couldn't speak English eirher.
    So. I reckon us left liberal types would be all in favour. Which is probably why the Danish equivalent are copying ours.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited September 8

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,509

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    No. Not until there is an alternative out there, prepared to take tough decisions.

    *scans horizon....*

    Nope....
  • MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    Aslan said:

    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    Most people paying NI are not incredibly wealthy.
    The people on this board are
    The top rate of tax in the UK is now 48.25%, the UK is a high tax country now.

    Even ignoring the top end, people on average wages are going to be paying an additional £300-400 per year while people who derive income from property or pensions won't, regardless of their actual earnings. Specifically including unearned income from dividends within the scope of this tax but excluding unearned income from property is a choice the government has made to protect old rich people.

    We're making the working poor worse off while old rich people will pay nothing. In any reasonable society it's wrong.
    While agreeing with your point, I'll go further and say the top rate of tax in the UK is only so low if you exclude many 'I-don't-believe-its-not-a-tax' taxes from the rate.

    49.8% was my calculation for a basic rate low-earning graduate past the repayment threshold. For many people it can be much, much higher now.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,825
    Amazingly enough, not everyone puts owning property as the sole purpose of their daily drudgery.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481
    edited September 8
    O/T

    "A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data
    Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest."

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    Charles said:

    Aslan said:

    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    Most people paying NI are not incredibly wealthy.
    The people on this board are
    Not all of us are incredibly wealthy. But I'm doing ok for now :)

    As for the tax increase I haven't examined the details enough to mind on a personal level, it's more a question of whether it has been targeted in a fair manner and will be effective that matters.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    edited September 8
    Aslan said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    You and PT have won me round. I have had mixed feelings about this because I do think a tax rise is needed and admire Boris for having the balls to do it. On the other hand it does seem a bit unfair the way it has been done.
    It really shouldn't take balls for someone with such a large majority to do something that is likely to be unpopular like a tax rise, but fair play I had assumed he would have backed down before it actually happened.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "@EuropeElects
    Germany, Allensbach poll:

    SPD-S&D: 27% (+3)
    CDU/CSU-EPP: 25% (-1)
    GRÜNE-G/EFA: 15.5% (-1.5)
    AfD-ID: 11% (+0.5)
    FDP-RE: 9.5% (-1)
    LINKE-LEFT: 6%

    +/- vs. 18-26 Aug

    Fieldwork: 1-7 September 2021
    Sample size: 1,258"

    That's a very different poll from the others - in particular CDU/CSU are high, and FDP low.
    This pollster often finds higher support for the two main parties.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's game over for Merkel's party. There isn't enough time for a recovery IMO.

    Their problem is that they're no longer Merkel's party. I think they'd be solid if she was sticking around.
    They are very much Merkel's party, Laschet is her anointed heir.

    Had they been led by the more conservative Soder by contrast polls show they would be doing rather better
    So what? People voted and would still vote for Merkel, they won't for Laschet no matter how anointed he is.
    Laschet's policies are virtually identical to Merkel's and Merkel had already led the Union to its lowest voteshare since 1949 in 2017.

    Expect the Union to move to the right in opposition and away from Merkelism
    Is the the CSU's vote under Söder going to go up this election?
    No but it will still be far higher than the CDU's in any other state in Germany and Soder is not the chancellor candidate even in Bavaria, Laschet is
    Aye, Söder's the man alright.

    '2018 Bavarian state election
    The CSU recorded its worst result since 1950 with 37% of votes, a decline of over ten percentage points.'

    They still won comfortably, 20% ahead of the 2nd placed Greens on 17%

    The last poll with Soder had him on 38% as preferred chancellor to just 21% for Scholz and 14% for Baerbock
    https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Scholz-und-die-SPD-ueberholen-CDU-CSU-article22760833.html
  • IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited September 8
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    "A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data
    Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest."

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction

    UnHerd interviewed Richard H. Thaler last week.....I was very excited to hear an extended interview with him, man, he was really rather aggressive e.g. Freddie Sayers suggested that "nudging" was a form of manipulation and he got really really arsey and just wouldn't let it go. For an hour, kept coming back to "well you called it manipulation, it isn't" whenever pushed on anything.

    Also, when he had parts of his famous book recited to him, again he really didn't like any sort of intellectual debate over it.

    He also employed some serious limbo dancing about some conflicting takes he had.

    I am always very wary of academics who I have encountered who are like this. Often they are hiding things they don't want you to go digging too hard, as they are worried you might find it.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    Blair/Cameron/Current LD or Labour… I think you’d not have to change your political philosophy much to walk that path
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited September 8

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    Says a Northerner with average house prices below the national average and where you can easily afford a property on your own on an average income unlike in the South.

    A 100% inheritance tax in London and the South East would be a disaster and turn 90% of it into renters in a generation or two and then the South East into Labour voters reliant on the state
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,314
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    Ones starting "People should be able to" aren't so bad.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481
    edited September 8

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    You can look at it from a completely different angle, and say it's better for people to make money for other people (albeit other members of their family) than to selfishly make it just for themselves.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited September 8
    isam said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    Blair/Cameron/Current LD or Labour… I think you’d not have to change your political philosophy much to walk that path
    Not sure about Blair / Cameron to current Labour party. Starmer is somewhat further to the left than Blair, then you have the rest of the team and the MPs, they are much more dominated by tax the rich until the pips squeak lot and all the wokery.
  • I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."

    As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited September 8
    IshmaelZ said:
    All other newspaper cartoonists just need to pack it in, day in day out, totally showed up by Matt.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,314

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."

    As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
    Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,481

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    "A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data
    Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest."

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction

    UnHerd interviewed Richard H. Thaler last week.....I was very excited to hear an extended interview with him, man, he was really rather aggressive e.g. Freddie Sayers suggested that "nudging" was a form of manipulation and he got really really arsey and just wouldn't let it go. For an hour, kept coming back to "well you called it manipulation, it isn't" whenever pushed on anything.

    Also, when he had parts of his famous book recited to him, again he really didn't like any sort of intellectual debate over it.

    He also employed some serious limbo dancing about some conflicting takes he had.

    I am always very wary of academics who I have encountered who are like this. Often they are hiding things they don't want you to go digging too hard, as they are worried you might find it.
    I'll have to listen to it. IMO nudging very definitely is a form of manipulation.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    Without wishing to be a white knight to philip as I would not pretend to have a full picture of his views, I don't quite follow. For one, someone being inclined to libertarianism surely doesn't mean 100% adherence to every libertarian position that exists or being entirely consistent about it, and for two, why wouldn't a libertarian have a view on saying what other people should do? That seems pretty central to any political philosophy, that person A thinks their way is best and thinks others should act similarly. Whether they would require others to do specific things might be another matter.
  • Andy_JS said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    You can look at it from a completely different angle, and say it's better for people to make money for other people (albeit other members of their family) than to selfishly make it just for themselves.
    If you have an agenda to push.

    Presumably if you're seeking to make money for other people and not for yourself then you're giving that money away when you earn it and not holding onto it until you die?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919

    I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated

    It's possible, but it still seems a distant propsect. The depth of that majority really does take something quite dramatic to cut down.
  • RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."

    As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
    Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
    Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,825
    edited September 8
    isam said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    Blair/Cameron/Current LD or Labour… I think you’d not have to change your political philosophy much to walk that path
    Yes. The much better than comfortably off Centrist is vastly over represented in comparison with the voting population.
    As are those who use logic and statistics as proofs, rather than the psychology of visceral emotions
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,238
    edited September 8
    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed
  • kle4 said:

    I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated

    It's possible, but it still seems a distant propsect. The depth of that majority really does take something quite dramatic to cut down.
    What did they say after Blair won again in 2005?
  • Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    "A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data
    Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest."

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction

    UnHerd interviewed Richard H. Thaler last week.....I was very excited to hear an extended interview with him, man, he was really rather aggressive e.g. Freddie Sayers suggested that "nudging" was a form of manipulation and he got really really arsey and just wouldn't let it go. For an hour, kept coming back to "well you called it manipulation, it isn't" whenever pushed on anything.

    Also, when he had parts of his famous book recited to him, again he really didn't like any sort of intellectual debate over it.

    He also employed some serious limbo dancing about some conflicting takes he had.

    I am always very wary of academics who I have encountered who are like this. Often they are hiding things they don't want you to go digging too hard, as they are worried you might find it.
    I'll have to listen to it. IMO nudging very definitely is a form of manipulation.
    I was quite taken aback by his reaction. Sayers is a clever well researched interviewer, but never rude, always respectful and lets people answer, and he clearly asked some questions as devils advocate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    "A Famous Honesty Researcher Is Retracting A Study Over Fake Data
    Renowned psychologist Dan Ariely literally wrote the book on dishonesty. Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest."

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/dan-ariely-honesty-study-retraction

    UnHerd interviewed Richard H. Thaler last week.....I was very excited to hear an extended interview with him, man, he was really rather aggressive e.g. Freddie Sayers suggested that "nudging" was a form of manipulation and he got really really arsey and just wouldn't let it go. For an hour, kept coming back to "well you called it manipulation, it isn't" whenever pushed on anything.

    Also, when he had parts of his famous book recited to him, again he really didn't like any sort of intellectual debate over it.

    He also employed some serious limbo dancing about some conflicting takes he had.

    I am always very wary of academics who I have encountered who are like this. Often they are hiding things they don't want you to go digging too hard, as they are worried you might find it.
    I'll have to listen to it. IMO nudging very definitely is a form of manipulation.
    Of course it is, it's just the latter word has negative connotations so when manipulation is for positive motivations we call it something else. That's not even wrong in itself.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    kle4 said:

    I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated

    It's possible, but it still seems a distant propsect. The depth of that majority really does take something quite dramatic to cut down.
    Polls show Current LD and Labour voters actually like this policy - they’re saying they don’t now because they hate to agree with political enemies, but it’s hardly a firm footing to start a massive push back from
  • kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    Without wishing to be a white knight to philip as I would not pretend to have a full picture of his views, I don't quite follow. For one, someone being inclined to libertarianism surely doesn't mean 100% adherence to every libertarian position that exists or being entirely consistent about it, and for two, why wouldn't a libertarian have a view on saying what other people should do? That seems pretty central to any political philosophy, that person A thinks their way is best and thinks others should act similarly. Whether they would require others to do specific things might be another matter.
    Exactly!

    Take drugs for instance. I don't touch cannabis or other illegal drugs, I think its a bad thing to get involved in and "people should" stay off the stuff.

    But I also think it should be their choice. Just because I have an opinion on what people should or shouldn't do, doesn't mean I want the law to compel them to follow my opinion.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited September 8

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."

    As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
    Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
    Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
    A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.

    So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated

    It's possible, but it still seems a distant propsect. The depth of that majority really does take something quite dramatic to cut down.
    Polls show Current LD and Labour voters actually like this policy - they’re saying they don’t now because they hate to agree with political enemies, but it’s hardly a firm footing to start a massive push back from
    I think people usually hold tax rises against a government so long as they remain generally positive (as much as government is viewed positively, which is not much) about the direction of travel. If things aren't a disaster and the increase in hardship of those most affected is not extreme then the public get over these things. It's one reason MPs could be bolder in pushing things through sometimes.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    Without wishing to be a white knight to philip as I would not pretend to have a full picture of his views, I don't quite follow. For one, someone being inclined to libertarianism surely doesn't mean 100% adherence to every libertarian position that exists or being entirely consistent about it, and for two, why wouldn't a libertarian have a view on saying what other people should do? That seems pretty central to any political philosophy, that person A thinks their way is best and thinks others should act similarly. Whether they would require others to do specific things might be another matter.
    Yeah, it's just the politics of envy with a veneer of tooth-sucking self-righteousness which slightly riles me. Plus he's always whining that he can't afford a decent house, so by his own standards he doesn't seem to be getting by on his own efforts. Plus, inheriting stuff is usually a morally neutral process - just existing does the trick - while lots of people make lots of money of their own by being complete and utter c--ts.
  • I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,893
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    No I am not, 1.25% NI for the NHS and social care is hardly impoverishment.

    You don't pay NI or income tax for earnings under £10,000 either.

    NI should be kept and ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and healthcare as it was originally set up to do.

    You are also wrong. Most children and grandchildren of property owners in the South and London on average incomes need an inheritance to buy property, they are not asset wise well off. Most under 40s in the North and Midlands however can buy their own properties even on an average income with few problems and without assistance as house prices are so much cheaper north of the Watford gap
    Class 1 NI starts at a threshold of £6240 annual income.
    He's rounding up to the nearest 10k.
    No, he's actually right. Class 1 NI starts at £184 a week (£9568 a year).
    £6 240 according to the government website:

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-thresholds-for-employers-2021-to-2022#class-1-national-insurance-thresholds
  • I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    You claim you don't want to make it personal yet you literally attacked me for having inheritance received from my grandmother. You said I was boasting about it.

    So please spare me the lecture, thanks
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited September 8

    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
    Pensioners have paid NI all their lives, in part to fund their state pension.

    Their children and grandchildren will also do the same and also stop paying NI once they reach pension age
  • IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    Without wishing to be a white knight to philip as I would not pretend to have a full picture of his views, I don't quite follow. For one, someone being inclined to libertarianism surely doesn't mean 100% adherence to every libertarian position that exists or being entirely consistent about it, and for two, why wouldn't a libertarian have a view on saying what other people should do? That seems pretty central to any political philosophy, that person A thinks their way is best and thinks others should act similarly. Whether they would require others to do specific things might be another matter.
    Yeah, it's just the politics of envy with a veneer of tooth-sucking self-righteousness which slightly riles me. Plus he's always whining that he can't afford a decent house, so by his own standards he doesn't seem to be getting by on his own efforts. Plus, inheriting stuff is usually a morally neutral process - just existing does the trick - while lots of people make lots of money of their own by being complete and utter c--ts.
    You're completely misrepresenting my position, I don't whine about my own situation but I don't expect anyone to give me a penny. I don't want or expect a penny in inheritance and I don't want or expect to see my parents die before I've retired anyway preferably.

    Everyone who works hard should be in a position they can get on, and get a home of their own, from their own efforts. That's not that unreasonable a position.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,314
    edited September 8
    Foxy said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Yes well you're just reaffirming what he said. Someone without conscience or empathy could have your picture next to it in the dictionary.
    Utter crap.

    Most people in the North can afford to buy their own homes on an average income, most of us here in the South need an inheritance to help us on the property ladder from a grandparent or parents. I am certainly not going to be made to feel guilty by you, especially given you have openly said you want to abolish the NHS and seem to have zero empathy for pensioners not all of whom are well off and most of whom have paid into the system all their lives
    You're impoverishing the working poor to protect your inheritance. Feel guilty.

    I've said from the beginning the tax should be raised by merging NI and income tax and keeping the £12.5k threshold. That means low income pensioners would see no tax rises, the working poor would see a tax reduction and pensioners on middle income, those who can afford it, would see a tax rise. I'd also tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income.

    Once again, your solution is to tax the working poor to allow rich old people to pass their assets on to their middle aged children who are already well off. You stand to benefit from it so you're in favour. It's the ultimate act of selfishness to be in favour of a tax on the poor to protect your future wealth.
    No I am not, 1.25% NI for the NHS and social care is hardly impoverishment.

    You don't pay NI or income tax for earnings under £10,000 either.

    NI should be kept and ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and healthcare as it was originally set up to do.

    You are also wrong. Most children and grandchildren of property owners in the South and London on average incomes need an inheritance to buy property, they are not asset wise well off. Most under 40s in the North and Midlands however can buy their own properties even on an average income with few problems and without assistance as house prices are so much cheaper north of the Watford gap
    Class 1 NI starts at a threshold of £6240 annual income.
    He's rounding up to the nearest 10k.
    No, he's actually right. Class 1 NI starts at £184 a week (£9568 a year).
    £6 240 according to the government website:

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-thresholds-for-employers-2021-to-2022#class-1-national-insurance-thresholds
    Scroll to the next table and it says the rate between 6240-9568 is a whopping 0%.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,238
    edited September 8

    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    You claim you don't want to make it personal yet you literally attacked me for having inheritance received from my grandmother. You said I was boasting about it.

    So please spare me the lecture, thanks
    I specifically apologised to you that I was wrong to say that and I went on to say I was pleased that through an inheritance you could buy a property in London

    I made that apology directly to you on one of your comment pieces and would hope that you would have had the good grace to accept it
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,857
    edited September 8
    HYUFD said:

    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
    Pensioners have paid NI all their lives, in part to fund their state pension.

    Their children and grandchildren will also do the same and also stop paying NI once they reach pension age
    Bullshit that is a lie.

    After today's tax changes combined NI is 24.6% of what an employer pays towards their employees wages. Which pensioners have paid that all their lives?

    What was NI when today's pensioners were say 18-30 if you want to look at all their lives?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 14,931
    edited September 8

    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    You claim you don't want to make it personal yet you literally attacked me for having inheritance received from my grandmother. You said I was boasting about it.

    So please spare me the lecture, thanks
    I specifically apologised to you that I was wrong to say that and I went on to say I was pleased that through an inheritance you could buy a property in London

    I made that apology directly to you on one of your comment pieces and would hope that you would have had the good grace to accept it
    I'm afraid your actions simply are unforgivable as far as I am concerned, attacking the inheritance from a dead person and insulting their memory in the process is really vile and disgusting and you should go away and think about it some more before coming on here and telling people what they should do.

    I'm not going to concern myself with this anymore but your response there has actually pissed me off even more so once again I am going to not say anything further otherwise I am going to get banned.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,825
    HYUFD said:

    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
    Pensioners have paid NI all their lives, in part to fund their state pension.

    Their children and grandchildren will also do the same and also stop paying NI once they reach pension age
    People pay NI to fund current pensions not their own. It has always been so.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919

    kle4 said:

    I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated

    It's possible, but it still seems a distant propsect. The depth of that majority really does take something quite dramatic to cut down.
    What did they say after Blair won again in 2005?
    There's a difference (well, a few, obviously). Labour had lost voteshare 2 elections in a row, even if they only lost a large number of seats in 2005, whilst the Tories presently have yo-yo'd a bit, but at the most recent election had an upswing, and have maintained a leading position, whilst by the same period after 2005 the Tories had consistent leads (until the Brown honeymoon, and then got it back). Things might change, but quite a few things need to change before a majority that size is overturned.

    I think things could be quite dramatic and for decent odds I'd chance a 2010 outcome at the next election, but I don't think that the odds are particularly understated at the moment.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    Gavin Williamson really is shown up by confusing Marcus Rashford with… the bloke he confused him with. Pretty discourteous to not remember who he’d spoke to, not to mention the semi racist trap he has fallen into
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,901
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
    Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.

    Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.

    Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.

    He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.

    And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.

    There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I genuinely think the odds of a 2010 in reverse in 2024 is understated

    It's possible, but it still seems a distant propsect. The depth of that majority really does take something quite dramatic to cut down.
    What did they say after Blair won again in 2005?
    There's a difference (well, a few, obviously). Labour had lost voteshare 2 elections in a row, even if they only lost a large number of seats in 2005, whilst the Tories presently have yo-yo'd a bit, but at the most recent election had an upswing, and have maintained a leading position, whilst by the same period after 2005 the Tories had consistent leads (until the Brown honeymoon, and then got it back). Things might change, but quite a few things need to change before a majority that size is overturned.

    I think things could be quite dramatic and for decent odds I'd chance a 2010 outcome at the next election, but I don't think that the odds are particularly understated at the moment.
    Blair was also replaced by an uncharismatic leader mid term - that’s a very big reason for Labour not winning a fourth consecutive GE
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
    Pensioners have paid NI all their lives, in part to fund their state pension.

    Their children and grandchildren will also do the same and also stop paying NI once they reach pension age
    People pay NI to fund current pensions not their own. It has always been so.
    You only get the state pension with sufficient NI credits
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.

    Well I am under 40 and disagree.

    Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
    Phew. That's OK, then.
    I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.

    People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
    I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
    Without wishing to be a white knight to philip as I would not pretend to have a full picture of his views, I don't quite follow. For one, someone being inclined to libertarianism surely doesn't mean 100% adherence to every libertarian position that exists or being entirely consistent about it, and for two, why wouldn't a libertarian have a view on saying what other people should do? That seems pretty central to any political philosophy, that person A thinks their way is best and thinks others should act similarly. Whether they would require others to do specific things might be another matter.
    Yeah, it's just the politics of envy with a veneer of tooth-sucking self-righteousness which slightly riles me. Plus he's always whining that he can't afford a decent house, so by his own standards he doesn't seem to be getting by on his own efforts. Plus, inheriting stuff is usually a morally neutral process - just existing does the trick - while lots of people make lots of money of their own by being complete and utter c--ts.
    You're completely misrepresenting my position, I don't whine about my own situation but I don't expect anyone to give me a penny. I don't want or expect a penny in inheritance and I don't want or expect to see my parents die before I've retired anyway preferably.

    Everyone who works hard should be in a position they can get on, and get a home of their own, from their own efforts. That's not that unreasonable a position.
    OK.

    Put your money where your mouth is and move from the North, where it is easy to say that, to London and the Home Counties and take an average wage job and try and do the same
  • I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
    I do not know of any political party that is supporting the merging of income tax and NI on all income but on my very modest retirement income I would of course pay it if it came into being

    I have received personal attacks and I just do not understand why people want to attack all the pensioners in this country who abide by the law, pay their taxes and try to be good parents, grandparents and neighbours and do not involve themselves especially in the political bubble we comment in
  • HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
    Pensioners have paid NI all their lives, in part to fund their state pension.

    Their children and grandchildren will also do the same and also stop paying NI once they reach pension age
    People pay NI to fund current pensions not their own. It has always been so.
    You only get the state pension with sufficient NI credits
    And you can get an "NI credit" while contributing the grand sum of £0.00 in NI.

    That's not funding your own pension.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
    Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.

    Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.

    Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.

    He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.

    And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.

    There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
    He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    edited September 8
    As an aside, the chart of opinion polling from 2017 to 2019 is a doozy.

    What a crazy ride that summer of 2019 was.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Edit: Note, in particular, how stable the Tory share was in the first 3-4 months of 2019 even though the May government had essentially lost all control for months, until finally it collapsed.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,825
    edited September 8
    People also should not have to spend the first ten years of their working lives living with, and sponging off, their parents, paying no rent or keep, and not enjoying the best years of their lives, just so they can scrimp together a deposit, so that society looks up to them as a respectable and valuable asset because they are a property owner.
    On this society is wrong.
    The increasing tendency to live with parents is a huge brake on labour mobility and possibly accounts for part of our poor productivity and lack of social mobility too.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,901
    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
    Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.

    Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.

    Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.

    He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.

    And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.

    There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
    He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
    Eh?

    @Casino_Royale, @MaxPB, @Casino_Royale and myself were all Brexit supporters.
  • I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    Nothing should be personal against others but the perspective that matters is that pensions are subject to Income Tax but not National Insurance and pensioners are backing tax rises on National Insurance instead of Income Tax. Which raises the tax on others but not themselves.

    If you don't want people to be angry with pensioners, then maybe pensioners should stop exempting themselves from the tax rises being imposed upon others.

    Advocate NI to be merged with Income Tax and your pension to be taxed in full and not in part with NI being applied in full on your pension and I'd have sympathy for your claims pensioners are being charged.
    I do not know of any political party that is supporting the merging of income tax and NI on all income but on my very modest retirement income I would of course pay it if it came into being

    I have received personal attacks and I just do not understand why people want to attack all the pensioners in this country who abide by the law, pay their taxes and try to be good parents, grandparents and neighbours and do not involve themselves especially in the political bubble we comment in
    Because pensioners are voting to raise taxes on others but not themselves.

    Your "very modest retirement income" is no different to someone else's "very modest income" and they're paying NI on that but you're not. That's not equal or equitable in society.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,857
    edited September 8
    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
    Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.

    Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.

    Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.

    He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.

    And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.

    There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
    He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
    That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
  • I am disturbed by the attacks on pensioners, and indeed very personal ones as well, when most pensioners are not wealthy nor live in London with its extraordinary property prices

    Furthermore this NHS and social care precept is going substantially to the NHS with an initial 5.5 billion to social care

    Pensioners will be required to fund upto £86,000 of care from 2023 in England and of course there are times both will be in care, as is the case with my son in laws parents who have already spent over £190,000 in care costs due to dementia when if they had been in care with terminal cancer all that would have been paid by the Wales NHS

    It s therefore factually wrong that pensioners do not have to pay substantial funds towards the end of their lives and that will continue

    And finally no political party is proposing taxing peoples homes to pay towards care and indeed Starmer seemed to be arguing today that all care costs should be met by the state and no-one needs to sell their home

    I know it will not change the minds of those angered by this change but a bit of perspective is needed

    You claim you don't want to make it personal yet you literally attacked me for having inheritance received from my grandmother. You said I was boasting about it.

    So please spare me the lecture, thanks
    I specifically apologised to you that I was wrong to say that and I went on to say I was pleased that through an inheritance you could buy a property in London

    I made that apology directly to you on one of your comment pieces and would hope that you would have had the good grace to accept it
    I'm afraid your actions simply are unforgivable as far as I am concerned, attacking the inheritance from a dead person and insulting their memory in the process is really vile and disgusting and you should go away and think about it some more before coming on here and telling people what they should do.

    I'm not going to concern myself with this anymore but your response there has actually pissed me off even more so once again I am going to not say anything further otherwise I am going to get banned.
    It says more about you than me that you cannot accept a genuine apology

    And by the way I did not know your source and would never insult your grandmother

    You maybe do need to reflect on your comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    edited September 8
    isam said:

    Gavin Williamson really is shown up by confusing Marcus Rashford with… the bloke he confused him with. Pretty discourteous to not remember who he’d spoke to, not to mention the semi racist trap he has fallen into

    Only just occurred to me, but the clarification is as big a blunder as the initial error. Why not just say he made a mistake?

    ETA it's not difficult, mind. Itoje is the one who concedes penalties, Rashford misses them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
    Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.

    Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.

    Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.

    He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.

    And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.

    There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
    He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
    It may not seem like it, but just occasionally people's views are not driven by Brexit alone.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,314
    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
    Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.

    Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.

    Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.

    He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.

    And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.

    There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
    He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
    It may not seem like it, but just occasionally people's views are not driven by Brexit alone.
    Impossible.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,901

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just an interesting observation...when I joined PB, I would say there was a majority of New Labour supporters (or at least very happy to vote for Tony, often despite this or that misgiving) then there some leakage over things like Iraq etc, then I don't know when but all of a sudden it felt like it has become Tory Home.

    The next GE we got the Coalition.

    Are we seeing the opposite now happening here?

    It has never been Tory Home, most posters on this site are economic and social liberals.

    Hence socialists and social conservatives tend to get a hard time
    I was obviously using a certain amount of hyperbole....but I would definitely say by the time Gordon Brown became PM, PB was absolutely dominated by people who spent day in day out criticising him, absolute hate figure and that Dave was alright.

    Seems like Boris / Tory policies becoming very unpopular on here.
    Yes and Brown was economically left but socially relatively conservative, so a leader bound to be despised by most on PB, while Dave as an economic and social liberal with Nick and George was bound to be on the bedroom walls of many PBers, gazed at adoringly before bedtime (no names mentioned TSE and PT).

    Boris was popular here when he was a Cameroon, now he is moving left economically but right on Brexit and the culture wars most PBers have gone off him
    Boris was popular because he did what no other Tory could do: deliver Brexit.

    Now, I have my criticisms of him there (I think it would have been more honest to leave without a deal, than to enter into one which we had not intention of keeping), but he did what he said he'd do: he implemented the results of the 2016 election.

    Boris was also popular because he implemented a brilliant vaccine procurement plan that meant the UK was first out the gate to protect the vulnerable.

    He's unpopular now because he's dithered about getting more jabs into more arms, increasing the risk of a lockdown.

    And he's unpopular because he's shifted the burden of taxation away looking at all income, and only looking at income from work.

    There is literally not a single iota of "social liberalism" in the reason he's increasingly unpopular. That is your delusion.
    He’s unpopular on here, which is where HYUFD was referring to, because he got Brexit done.
    That's not why Casino, Max or myself are annoyed with him. EDIT: You beat me to it, sorry I forgot you too Robert!
    I must admit that while I'm unimpressed with him over the NI "wheeze" (it would have been much more honest and fair to have added a penny to income tax), my current irritation is more about the government going from hero to zero over Covid vaccinations.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 596

    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    Aslan said:

    Charles said:

    1,500 more posts today from incredibly wealthy and successful people upset about a modest increase in their taxes.

    FFS guys. Just listen to yourselves

    Most people paying NI are not incredibly wealthy.
    The people on this board are
    The top rate of tax in the UK is now 48.25%, the UK is a high tax country now.

    Even ignoring the top end, people on average wages are going to be paying an additional £300-400 per year while people who derive income from property or pensions won't, regardless of their actual earnings. Specifically including unearned income from dividends within the scope of this tax but excluding unearned income from property is a choice the government has made to protect old rich people.

    We're making the working poor worse off while old rich people will pay nothing. In any reasonable society it's wrong.
    While agreeing with your point, I'll go further and say the top rate of tax in the UK is only so low if you exclude many 'I-don't-believe-its-not-a-tax' taxes from the rate.

    49.8% was my calculation for a basic rate low-earning graduate past the repayment threshold. For many people it can be much, much higher now.
    A student loan is not a tax.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,241

    Scott_xP said:

    Dan Hodges ( I know)

    Reshuffle speculation mounting tonight

    LATEST Senior Government sources confirming to me tonight there is definitely NO Cabinet reshuffle tomorrow. Put your phones back on silent everyone.
    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1435703465033052160
    Who knows, but the rumours have done their job of making the minions pliant for a key vote, and only a fool would throw away that power unnecessarily.

    Terrible as he is, Boris gets "Leader of the gang" dynamics.
    Is that an accidental conflation of Boris Johnson and Gary Glitter?
This discussion has been closed.