What will Rishi’s PM chances look like after today’s budget? – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).2 -
Nominative determinisim again?Northern_Al said:On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
5 -
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.0 -
“Taking the knee” is pointless if people are forced to do it.
Just let people make their own choice ffs.11 -
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.Philip_Thompson said:
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.0 -
well just sold most of the buzzwords on sportingindex spreads but bought length of speech as a saver0
-
The moment you implement real devolution in this country, however, you immediately get whines about "postcode lotteries".TimS said:
My biggest worry is that with ever more centralisation of power and spending - and this is something that's been going on since at least the 1980s - we get one size fits all policy which ends up at the whim of national politicians and either completely overlooks local needs, or lends itself to pork barrel spending in marginal constituencies. Then we get this uneven growth in devolved administrations with wildly different degrees of autonomy and influence, most of which have very little impact on the local things that really matter like schooling, infrastructure, housing and social services.Fishing said:
Most public services are showing strain in one way or another. The trouble with the kind of soft eco-socialism that this government practices is that you pretty quickly run out of other people's money. You hit the economy with high taxes and eco-regulations and spend like a drunken sailor and then are surprised when the "green jobs" you promise never appear and the productive sector shrinks.TimS said:
I'm waiting with trepidation, because I am hosting a budget reaction event this afternoon and a client seminar on Friday, and so far there is really not much of interest to talk about, good or bad, on taxes. Particularly for corporates. The whole thing seemingly being pre-announced makes the job of presenting something interesting rather harder too (whatever others imply, this is much more heavily pre-briefed than any budget in recent history).Cyclefree said:So what tax increases will there be today?
Because all this humongous spending has to be paid for, one way or another.
There is reasonable good news on public finances since March which means Sunak does have some flexibility not to raise taxes significantly. Remember there have already been 2 big tax raising announcements this year already: the CT rate rise to 25% and the health & social care levy.
Expect less and less money to local government though. The instinct of this government since 2010 has repeatedly been to cut money to councils where possible. They were already running on vapour and will soon be on their knees. That plus general neglect of the education budget is not good news if you are a LA trying to run primary schools while keeping the bin collections and road repairs going.
That slogan is like "concreting over the countryside" or "24 hours to save the NHS" - it has no relation to reality, but lazy politicians and journalists (75% of the former and 95% of the latter) use it as a substitute for serious thought.0 -
Indeed, Colin Kaepernick & Quintin De Kock should both be able to make their own choices on this and not be blackballed by their respective employers/organisations.Gallowgate said:“Taking the knee” is pointless if people are forced to do it.
Just let people make their own choice ffs.5 -
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.Gallowgate said:
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.Philip_Thompson said:
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.0 -
PMQs raises the question, will Boris blow Rishi's remaining secrets?0
-
SKS has tested positive for Covid. Ed Miliband back doing PMQs.0
-
Blimey. And perhaps replying to the budget? ETA not Angela?Philip_Thompson said:SKS has tested positive for Covid. Ed Miliband back doing PMQs.
0 -
A much better option for LAB than Angela Rayner.Philip_Thompson said:SKS has tested positive for Covid. Ed Miliband back doing PMQs.
0 -
We have big taxes on unoccupied residential property.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
I have a couple I have not been able to rent out due to probate delays at the HMRC. Have cost thousands.0 -
People will die in the strangest ditches.Selebian said:
Nominative determinisim again?Northern_Al said:On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
0 -
Not sure how anyone could vote for a PM with such a weak immune system. He gets through bouts of Covid like hot cakes.0
-
You could bring in the big charge for unoccupied residential property, whilst decreasing HB gradually. I think in some London boroughs it is over a grand a month !Gallowgate said:
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.Philip_Thompson said:
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
LLs will want to keep their properties occupied..0 -
Speaker
The Leader of the Opposition is isolating0 -
Nevertheless not sure it proves your suggestion that the Hitlergruß resembles taking the knee, though it's not an original proposition.state_go_away said:
sort of proves my point then if forced by the sport organisation (FA in this case)
'Tory MP compares England footballers taking the knee to Nazi salute'
https://tinyurl.com/4cnrd46f
What's interesting to me is that retrospectively one of the Stanleys involved (Rous) stated that it was left entirely up to the players while the other (Matthews) vehemently denies this. Decades of hindsight is a wonderful thing.1 -
Back to 2011 with Ed there!0
-
No Starmer? Who will reply to the budget?0
-
Ed Miliband leading for Labour so does he respond to the budget0
-
Is Ed turning into Norman Lamont?0
-
Has he had Covid before, or just been isolating?maaarsh said:Not sure how anyone could vote for a PM with such a weak immune system. He gets through bouts of Covid like hot cakes.
0 -
actually who is the shadow chancellor ?tlg86 said:No Starmer? Who will reply to the budget?
0 -
Reevesstate_go_away said:
actually who is the shadow chancellor ?tlg86 said:No Starmer? Who will reply to the budget?
0 -
It isn't paying for a landlord's mortgage; it's paying for (usually part of) a tenants rent.Philip_Thompson said:
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.Gallowgate said:
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.Philip_Thompson said:
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Do you have a similar objection to the part of Universal Credit spent on food paying for supermarkets' advertising or borrowing to buy their business premises? Or Tesco's shareholders' dividends?
On UC, I think the original taper as designed by IDS, was around 50-55%.0 -
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand:Northern_Al said:On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
- No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice)
- de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)2 -
Rachel Reeves but narrow escape for Rayner who should respondstate_go_away said:
actually who is the shadow chancellor ?tlg86 said:No Starmer? Who will reply to the budget?
0 -
Ducking out altogether or addressing us remotely?Big_G_NorthWales said:Speaker
The Leader of the Opposition is isolating
I am so foul mouthed my phone now autocorrects ducking to begin with f rather than the other way round4 -
All the Labour frontbench at PMQs except Ed Miliband who is asking the questions wearing facemasks.
However a more mixed picture on the Conservative benches. Sunak and Raab both wearing facemasks, Rees-Mogg and Truss are not (and Boris obviously not to answer the questions)0 -
Not sure you can any more assume he was rude about it, than you can assume any other member of the team actually believes in it rather than just protecting their career by playing along, now that this has happened.Selebian said:
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand:Northern_Al said:On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
- No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice)
- de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)0 -
More important is Starmer absent, no Rayner, and who knows who will respond to the budget but Rachel Reeves would be sensibleHYUFD said:All the Labour frontbench at PMQs except Ed Miliband who is asking the questions wearing facemasks.
However a more mixed picture on the Conservative benches. Sunak and Raab both wearing facemasks, Rees-Mogg and Truss are not (and Boris obviously not to answer the questions)0 -
Fear not, I'd have an exemption where it's legally not possible to rent a property out. If there are large taxes already on unoccupied houses, why is housing benefit needed at all ? You have to rent the house to someone...MattW said:
We have big taxes on unoccupied residential property.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
I have a couple I have not been able to rent out due to probate delays. Have cost thousands.1 -
But the tenant is only allowed to claim the allowance if they rent and not for their own mortgage. Even if their own mortgage would be cheaper.MattW said:
It isn't paying for a landlord's mortgage; it's paying for (usually part of) a tenants rent.Philip_Thompson said:
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.Gallowgate said:
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.Philip_Thompson said:
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Do you have a similar objection to the part of Universal Credit spent on food paying for supermarket's advertising? Or Tesco's shareholders' dividends?
If the recipient is to be spending the money they receive on housing they should spend it however they choose. Why exclude potentially cheaper mortgages and compel them to have more expensive rent instead?
If the UC spent on food was only able to be received if it went on more expensive meals prepared by restaurants like McDonalds and not if they were buying their own groceries and paying for it themselves then absolutely I'd oppose that completely.
Let people choose for themselves how to spend their money for food or housing, not compel them down certain paths.0 -
Doesn't that mean that Angela Rayner will be doing the response?IshmaelZ said:
Ducking out altogether or addressing us remotely?Big_G_NorthWales said:Speaker
The Leader of the Opposition is isolating
I am so foul mouthed my phone now autocorrects ducking to begin with f rather than the other way round
Isn't this the budget?
0 -
She is not in the house as far as I knowMattW said:
Doesn't that mean that Angela Rayner will be doing the response?IshmaelZ said:
Ducking out altogether or addressing us remotely?Big_G_NorthWales said:Speaker
The Leader of the Opposition is isolating
I am so foul mouthed my phone now autocorrects ducking to begin with f rather than the other way round
Isn't this the budget?0 -
What would happen to the houses and flats if Housing Benefit was cut significantly?MattW said:
It isn't paying for a landlord's mortgage; it's paying for (usually part of) a tenants rent.Philip_Thompson said:
I see no reason why Housing Benefit should be paying for a landlord's mortgage plus a profit, instead of the tenant having their own mortgage.Gallowgate said:
Sounds great in theory. I suspect not so great in practice.Philip_Thompson said:
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Do you have a similar objection to the part of Universal Credit spent on food paying for supermarkets' advertising or borrowing to buy their business premises? Or Tesco's shareholders' dividends?
On UC, I think the original taper as designed by IDS, was around 50-55%.
1. The rents would reduce
2. House prices would reduce
3. They would be relatively more attractive to homeowners than landlords.
None of those are bad things and the houses and flats would still be people's homes.5 -
Keir's just lucky he got it now rather than immediately after Labour's holiday from masks down in Brighton0
-
Think SKS said that Rayner had a loss of a close friend recently.MattW said:
Doesn't that mean that Angela Rayner will be doing the response?IshmaelZ said:
Ducking out altogether or addressing us remotely?Big_G_NorthWales said:Speaker
The Leader of the Opposition is isolating
I am so foul mouthed my phone now autocorrects ducking to begin with f rather than the other way round
Isn't this the budget?
Or he is indeed sidelining her0 -
Ed Miliband!!0
-
Could be made to work if the housing benefit element was reckoned to contribute to shared ownership - say the amount received through housing benefit divided by total amount paid in mortgage payments times proft when the house is sold (or passed on after death). So if housing benefit paid half of the paid down mortgage then half of the profit (after paying off whatever is left of the mortgage) goes back to government on sale. Otherwise I don't see it flying that the housing benefit goes to fund property windfalls (I know it arguably does at the moment, but for the landlord).Philip_Thompson said:
Housing benefit can't go towards paying a mortgage either can it? Just rent? Despite mortgages being potentially cheaper.Pulpstar said:
Housing benefit is the absolute worst benefit. The number of people and houses doesn't broadly change - big taxes on unoccupied residential property would achieve a very similar end with a benefit rather than cost to the taxpayer.eek said:
At best = as good a solution as we can find given the existing parameters.Philip_Thompson said:
Why is that the best? Why should anyone be facing a real tax rate of 65%? How does that encourage them to work or reward them for working?eek said:
I don't think that solution works - at best you can have a lower taper (65% rather than 75% say), start the taper at a slightly higher level (say £100 a month more before it kicks in) or a combination of the two.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
If you don't believe in 65% tax rates for the well off (and I don't) why should we believe in that for the poor?
It's not best - however unless you have some taper you will find everyone would be on UC unless they earn £60,000+ because without a taper you would have either an abrupt cut off point (see the 16 hours in older schemes) or something which was too generous (especially in areas like London where housing benefit sends UC sky high).
As part of my UC reforms I'd love to see Housing Benefit completely abolished. Totally abolished.
People should be able to afford a home from their own wages in whatever means they prefer. If that means mortgages instead of rent, then great.
Probably some good reasons why that would be a very bad idea...0 -
Agreed on both counts.Selebian said:
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand:Northern_Al said:On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
- No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice)
- de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
Without knowing more detail, it's impossible to say whether this was defensible or not - and I suspect an unbiased account will now be pretty difficult to obtain.
1 -
Blimely Blackfoot raised a sensible question/2
-
Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech0
-
I think the larger problem highlighted is that living costs are so high/the minimum wage so low that people working full-time on the minimum wage are not able to support themselves, and so receive a subsidy from the government.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
That's a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the economy.1 -
She is being pushed isn't she....BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
0 -
If there is more to this than simply de Kock refusing to take the knee, then we need to be told. Otherwise people are just projecting what they wish to be true because they know that dropping a player for such a reason is utterly indefensible.Nigelb said:
Agreed on both counts.Selebian said:
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand:Northern_Al said:On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
- No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice)
- de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)
Without knowing more detail, it's impossible to say whether this was defensible or not - and I suspect an unbiased account will now be pretty difficult to obtain.0 -
Where are Rayner and Rachel ReevesBlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Labour seem to be in chaos today0 -
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.2 -
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition0 -
They do but this is a great opportunity for Phillipson and she seems pretty smart.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Where are Rayner and Rachel ReevesBlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Labour seem to be in chaos today
Be interesting to see how she does.0 -
Seem to be more masks down at the fraternal club.0
-
I had literally never heard of her until now. Entirely political career from what I can see on Wikipedia.BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
0 -
0
-
No, I can't assume anything. I wasn't trying to do so - as noted, I don't know what has happened. He might have ben badly wronged or there may be other things that have happened about which we know nothing.maaarsh said:
Not sure you can any more assume he was rude about it, than you can assume any other member of the team actually believes in it rather than just protecting their career by playing along, now that this has happened.Selebian said:
I agree. I may seem to be arguing this from two sides given my posts and likes, but for me two things stand:Northern_Al said:On Quinton de Kock, we don't know the full story, do we? But from what we do know, it doesn't look as if the rest of the team are downing tools or springing to his defence. I wonder why not. It is possible that De Kock has an "attitude problem", to put it euphemistically, isn't it?
- No one should be forced to take the knee, wear a poppy, whatever (it becomes pointless if so - everyone on TV wearing one has no impact when you know they don't have a lot of choice)
- de Kock may still have been quite correctly dropped, if his attitude/actions are making him disruptive to the team/damaging team morale/spirit (I don't think a polite, reasoned, respectful refusal to take the knee would make this likely, but - of course - I don't know what has happened)1 -
Its not necessarily the case.LostPassword said:
I think the larger problem highlighted is that living costs are so high/the minimum wage so low that people working full-time on the minimum wage are not able to support themselves, and so receive a subsidy from the government.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
That's a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the economy.
A childless couple working full time won't be eligible to a penny of benefits as far as I'm aware.
Its the state offering support to children that has created the large benefits bill. Plus a nation we don't want people on unemployment benefits to starve and end up on the streets, so those who are working aren't just ideally working to support themselves - but the comparison ought to be that they should be better off than those who are not working.
If the people who are working get enough to support themselves but because the benefits have been withdrawn in one fell swoop are not any better off than those not working, is that an improvement?0 -
Tom Harwood
@tomhfh
Less than an hour ago Covid-positive Starmer posted this photo with Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson.0 -
.rottenborough said:
Tom Harwood
@tomhfh
Less than an hour ago Covid-positive Starmer posted this photo with Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson.
0 -
So long as they're double-vaccinated there's no need for them to isolate.rottenborough said:
Tom Harwood
@tomhfh
Less than an hour ago Covid-positive Starmer posted this photo with Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson.0 -
0
-
That is sensiblerottenborough said:
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
15m
Confirmed:
@RachelReevesMP
will do Labour's Budget response0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiItnQaLIugstate_go_away said:
actually who is the shadow chancellor ?tlg86 said:No Starmer? Who will reply to the budget?
0 -
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition0 -
The Shad Chancellor has a prime spot later in the debate (tomorrow?). Which makes sense to keep to, since they will have had time to go through the small print a bit by then.Taz said:
They do but this is a great opportunity for Phillipson and she seems pretty smart.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Where are Rayner and Rachel ReevesBlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Labour seem to be in chaos today
Be interesting to see how she does.
And besides; Rayner is no more Starmer's No 2 than Raab is BoJo's.0 -
Seems Rachel is respondingFoxy said:
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition0 -
Yet our birth rate is below replacement !Philip_Thompson said:
Its not necessarily the case.LostPassword said:
I think the larger problem highlighted is that living costs are so high/the minimum wage so low that people working full-time on the minimum wage are not able to support themselves, and so receive a subsidy from the government.Philip_Thompson said:
The issue with that is that under the old system pre-UC you'd lose your benefits if you worked over 16 hours work.turbotubbs said:
Philip - I do not understand how UC works, at all. But I am struck by this - if you work 38 hours a week on the NLW, and are still receiving UC then something is wrong in the world surely? Maybe I am just too naive?Philip_Thompson said:
No they're not. Even ignoring inflation, given those in full time work are marginally taxed at 75% of what they earn extra, they'd need to be working 135.6 hours per week to get £20 from a 59p per hour increase.DavidL said:
Not sure. Those in full time work are already getting another £20 a week due to the increase in the NLW.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be better by far to take that money and spend it on the taper, so that someone working full time on NLW gets the £20 per week but those who aren't working don't.DavidL said:
That would be expensive but a real rabbit from the hat. I wouldn't rule it out.rottenborough said:Burnham reckons the UC uplift will be put back?
Is he just making mischief?
The problem is that previously under the benefits + 16 hours work + housing credit + child benefits plus whatever else someone might get could be better off than someone working 30 hours a week. People faced a real tax rate of over 100% if they worked over 16 hours.
The UC taper improved this so you should always be better off by working, but its left a position whereby people are facing a real tax rate of 75% on everything they earn. So you're only 25% better off, which once you factor in childcare and other costs to working can mean you're still no better off working more.
The fix is to abolish the taper/merge the taper into the tax system, thus giving the UC to every citizen in the country but having a single tax rate. The UC then would operate in the same way as your tax-free allowance does currently, so you'd only pay net taxes (or be a net recipient on a clean and simple rate).
That's a symptom of something fundamentally wrong in the operation of the economy.
A childless couple working full time won't be eligible to a penny of benefits as far as I'm aware.
Its the state offering support to children that has created the large benefits bill. Plus a nation we don't want people on unemployment benefits to starve and end up on the streets, so those who are working aren't just ideally working to support themselves - but the comparison ought to be that they should be better off than those who are not working.
If the people who are working get enough to support themselves but because the benefits have been withdrawn in one fell swoop are not any better off than those not working, is that an improvement?0 -
Only if they're not vaccinated surely?Foxy said:
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
Isolation for vaccinated contacts was dropped months ago.
And if they're not vaccinated, that should be a concern.0 -
Sorry, appears to be fake news..BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
0 -
I see Sunak, Raab and Patel are all wearing masks in the HoC - as was Johnson when he walked in.
Bloody virtue-signalling Tories. Let's hope Rees-Mogg disowns then for not being sufficiently convivial.3 -
4-0-12-1 fantastic tight bowling from Woakes.4
-
When I look at the OECD country comparison, UK has fast growth, but it also had a larger decline than other countries.MattW said:
That's not what the OECD say...rkrkrk said:
UK recovery is lagging other nations. We won't get the economic growth we need under the Tories.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It could be paid for by economic growth, which would both increase the take from existing taxes, and increase gdp (so reducing debt/gdp, for example).Cyclefree said:So what tax increases will there be today?
Because all this humongous spending has to be paid for, one way or another.
https://www.ft.com/content/af12d4aa-0a3e-4758-83c4-0c4070b504fb
1:1 - score draw.
If you average these things out, 2021 isn't going to make up for 2020 in the UK, but it will for the OECD average.
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/recovery-dashboard?country=OECD0 -
You said you were keen on her earlier, but I didn't realise you were on first-name terms!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Rachel is respondingFoxy said:
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition0 -
I think she is the best in labour at presentNorthern_Al said:
You said you were keen on her earlier, but I didn't realise you were on first-name terms!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Rachel is respondingFoxy said:
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
0 -
She has some credibility which is in relatively short supply for LAB at the moment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think she is the best in labour at presentNorthern_Al said:
You said you were keen on her earlier, but I didn't realise you were on first-name terms!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Rachel is respondingFoxy said:
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition0 -
Javid also wearing a mask.Northern_Al said:I see Sunak, Raab and Patel are all wearing masks in the HoC - as was Johnson when he walked in.
Bloody virtue-signalling Tories. Let's hope Rees-Mogg disowns then for not being sufficiently convivial.
Rees-Mogg and Truss still taking a libertarian line on masks though and were maskless (though both have been double jabbed)0 -
Naughty boy Sunak at the box.0
-
Four Madame deputy speakers already!2
-
Mrs Deputy Speaker making her point.
She’s right, that the briefing has got silly.1 -
probably because Westminster mandated them for all staff but MPs . Probably solidarity rather than covid worryrottenborough said:Seem to be more masks down at the fraternal club.
0 -
Saying it as it is reportedFarooq said:
Big_G in chaos this afternoon.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems Rachel is respondingFoxy said:
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition0 -
Zarah Sultana at PMQ's, where do labour get these student politics types from ?0
-
Who writes this guff?
Get on with it rishi0 -
Very good opportunity for Reeves today. Reminds me of the moment in Blair & Brown when Gordon stepped in to deliver the response when a junior shadow treasury spokesman.1
-
On topic, a Rishi fan writes....
https://unherd.com/2021/10/why-rishi-sunak-will-win/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=f6f7730f53&mc_eid=836634e34b
Where Boris is shambolic, Rishi is spruce. Boris looks necrotic, Rishi simply gleams. We know Boris is a rake; Rishi is fanatically uxorious. Boris is all appetites: embarrassingly lardy. But Rishi is all discipline, Peloton-ed every morning0 -
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is sensiblerottenborough said:
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
15m
Confirmed:
@RachelReevesMP
will do Labour's Budget response0 -
Excellent. Rachel – your time has come.
When opportunity arises, grab it with both hands.
Go for it Rach!0 -
He cannot help being illDecrepiterJohnL said:
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is sensiblerottenborough said:
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
15m
Confirmed:
@RachelReevesMP
will do Labour's Budget response1 -
Anyone counting sips?
0 -
He can help who he asks to step in, obviously!Big_G_NorthWales said:
He cannot help being illDecrepiterJohnL said:
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is sensiblerottenborough said:
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
15m
Confirmed:
@RachelReevesMP
will do Labour's Budget response0 -
Johnson doesn't do 'rules'!0
-
We should knock these runs off without too much sweat. We'll see.0
-
And who pays attention to the debate of the next couple of days/DecrepiterJohnL said:
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is sensiblerottenborough said:
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
15m
Confirmed:
@RachelReevesMP
will do Labour's Budget response
The initial response to the Budget is broadcast and what gets attention. If the Shadow Chancellor isn't up to the job then that's a real concern.0 -
Climate activists have stormed and are occupying the Science Museum in protest at them accepting sponsorship money from fossil fuel companies, or some other such guff.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/london-protesters-storm-science-museum-and-plan-to-occupy-venue-all-night/ar-AAPYSjI?ocid=entnewsntp0 -
I would have expected Miliband to do the budget response after taking on the job of PMQs, but it matters less who responds to the budget than that they do it well. One of the toughest jobs in British politics.DecrepiterJohnL said:
No it is not. Traditionally the Shadow Chancellor leads for the Opposition in the budget debate over the next couple of days. Responding off the cuff today, without the benefit of poring over the red book, should be left to another. Yet another example of SKS getting the politics wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is sensiblerottenborough said:
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
15m
Confirmed:
@RachelReevesMP
will do Labour's Budget response1 -
Would be rather amusing though, especially from a party that fetishizes the NHS.Philip_Thompson said:
Only if they're not vaccinated surely?Foxy said:
With Starmer testing positive, perhaps his closest colleagues are needing to isolate, at least until they have negative PCR back.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just cannot understand where Rachel Reeves isPhilip_Thompson said:
Who?BlancheLivermore said:Bridget Phillipson will be responding to the Budget speech
Frankly ridiculous not to have the Shadow Chancellor do it.
Starmer isolates, labour deputy Rayner and shadow COE Reeves missing, Miliband deputising at PMQS, and Phillipson who is a light weight responds to Rishi
This is the state of UKs official opposition
Isolation for vaccinated contacts was dropped months ago.
And if they're not vaccinated, that should be a concern.0 -
Boris if you’re going to wear a mask, wear it properly, y’eejit1
? 
? 
This discussion has been closed.