December 2024: A tongue-in-cheek prediction – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Taz said:

Never had caviar. Probably never will.

Had it. Wasn't that impressed by it. Not had it again since.

I'd rather have good sushi.

We had caviar on two of our trips to Russia years ago, but neither of us were impressed

From the Russian side of the family, I've heard that the combination of high prices and foreigners has attracted the inevitable. The crooks are faking caviar in Russia by the ton...

Can you even get the real wild caspian stuff any more? It’s all farmed now…

There is a sturgeon farm in Garforth, just east of Leeds.

Taz said:

RobD said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.

You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!

As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.

This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.

I think it's obvious why.

It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.

Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.

rottenborough said:

THIS!!! 100x this...

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.

If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?

Maybe because Brown left the country with no money so they couldn't be afforded then?

Plus it was different people then. Sunak wasn't even an MP until 2015 let alone Chancellor.

Wild suggestion of the day.

How do Labour wrestle the agenda back?

Promise to cut income tax to 15p by taxing wealth and non income earnings.

Hammer those who have, to reward those that work.

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

THIS!!! 100x this...

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.

If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?

Maybe because Brown left the country with no money so they couldn't be afforded then?

Plus it was different people then. Sunak wasn't even an MP until 2015 let alone Chancellor.

It was a myth that there was no money. There's no money now, but somehow the BoE is creating it by buying up all the government debt.

For some reason that wasn't possible in 2010.

I: Big spender ⁦@RishiSunak⁩ takes tax burden back to 1950’s #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1453466624456015875/photo/1

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1453458225668542464

Economic credentials, shredded.

If the Conservatives are more associated with tax rises than Labour its probably because you have to be in power to raise taxes and Labour havent been.

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

THIS!!! 100x this...

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.

If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?

Maybe because Brown left the country with no money so they couldn't be afforded then?

Plus it was different people then. Sunak wasn't even an MP until 2015 let alone Chancellor.

It was a myth that there was no money. There's no money now, but somehow the BoE is creating it by buying up all the government debt.

For some reason that wasn't possible in 2010.

Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.

Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?

The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.

The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.

Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.

Does anyone know why Scotland does so few covid tests ?

And which demographics are not being tested in Scotland but are in England ?

rottenborough said:

Wild suggestion of the day.

How do Labour wrestle the agenda back?

Promise to cut income tax to 15p by taxing wealth and non income earnings.

Hammer those who have, to reward those that work.

And then they realise that 27% of income tax is paid by 1%. And the 1% has gone walkabout.

"Sorry, poor people, we have to put the taxes UP on you as well...."

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

I don't think reporting or polling on budgets is ever particularly useful, since most of what is said on both sides is just partisan cliches, most of the 'initial takes' are prepackaged praise or criticisms, or generic fluff, and as with most political events the public don't really notice pretty significant things even when told about them, and the plans might fall due to some inconsequential detail that gets focused on for reasons no one really knows.

That said, the BBC main page headline of 'Sunak unveils help for low paid in post-Covid budget' is surely pleasing for at least one figure, and could be and often is a lot worse as far as single line summaries go.

Let's be frank - I think the Budget was expertly trailed (as I said at the weekend) and smoothly delivered and will produce a Tory bounce in the next polls. But I doubt if it will produce a lasting effect - Sunak has sprayed money around to all sectors but not enough for a major long-term shift in attitudes. It does, though, cement him as the potential successor if Johnson stumbles.

The big ticket item that anyone working will notice is the NI increase. The rest is all trimming as far as personal finance is concerned (excepting possibly the UC taper for those affected)

Philip_Thompson said:

Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.

Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?

The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.

The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.

Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.

I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.

The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

RobD said:

Taz said:

RobD said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.

You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!

As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.

This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.

I think it's obvious why.

It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.

Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.

Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!

Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.

The story is less credible than the notion that Leon is a noted flint dildo knapper who travels around the world writing travel stories for the Flint Knapper Gazette.

Well of course that's absurd - obviously he's freelance and writes stories for many reputable flint knapping and antique sex toy publications. Duh.

God this is depressing;

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896

Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.

In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.

ping said:

God this is depressing;

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896

Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.

In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.

Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.

Cyclefree said:

Thank God I live on a hill.

1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......

Will,your daughters restaurant be okay ?

Philip_Thompson said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.

Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?

The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.

The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.

Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.

I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.

The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.

You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).

Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.

Not that remarkably, as interest rates have collapsed to near zero across the developed world.

The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)

turbotubbs said:

ping said:

God this is depressing;

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896

Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.

In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.

Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.

The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.

I don’t understand it.

ping said:

turbotubbs said:

ping said:

God this is depressing;

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896

Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.

In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.

Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.

The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.

I don’t understand it.

The productivity gains are offset by the proliferation of sites like PB. Workers choose to be equally productive and spend more time on PB, rather than more productive with same time on PB

ping said:

turbotubbs said:

ping said:

God this is depressing;

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896

Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.

In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.

Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.

The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.

I don’t understand it.

Unfortunately the extra productivity went into the creation of social media content.

ping said:

God this is depressing;

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896

Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.

In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.

That's a very disingenuous image for many, many reasons.

1. Why 1997-2008? The Tories took over in 2010, why 2008 figures? Because 2008 was before the bubble burst. Its a fake peak.
   
2. There wasn't a 'trend' from 1997-2008. There was growth 1997-2002, then it slowed down to 2004, then it increasingly slowed to a flatline. 2006-2010 there was no growth.
   
3. Most importantly it doesn't take into account the national deficit at all. The government is one of the largest employers of all (directly and indirectly) and as furlough has shown its easy to pay wages if you're not bothered about raising money to pay for it - if you are its a different matter.
   
4. To be a more meaningful comparison you should adjust the income by that person's share of the government deficit (or surplus).
   
5. Remember that there was a budget surplus in 2001 that was turned into a 10% budget deficit by 2010. So really wages were falling from ~2004 onwards, it was just masked by blowing up the deficit.
   
6. Remember that there was a 10% budget deficit in 2010 that was eliminated by 2019 pre-pandemic.
   

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.

Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?

The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.

The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.

Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.

I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.

The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.

You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).

Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.

Not that remarkably, as interest rates have collapsed to near zero across the developed world.

The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)

Yes, it's nothing whatsoever to do with Osborne or his stewardship. Everything to do with the low inflation environment caused by a number of structural factors.

squareroot2 said:

rottenborough said:

rottenborough said:

THIS!!! 100x this...

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
Rishi Sunak talking about importance of first 1000 days of a child’s life as though he’s the first to think of it.

If family hubs are so important - why did they shut more than a thousand Sure Start centres?

SureStart really makes me angry. It really was working turning around the worst problems in deprived families.

Ditched by Osborne. Purely for partisan reasons.

Shameful.

What evidence is there for this.. and what was the cost per family?

Tonybee.

In our book, ‘The Verdict: Did Labour Change Britain?’ we give the highest marks to Labour’s nursery and Sure Start programme as one of that government’s most permanently transformative successes.

https://labourlist.org/2013/06/sure-start-one-of-labours-most-permanently-transformative-successes/

Selebian said:

ping said:

turbotubbs said:

ping said:

God this is depressing;

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1453373283278245896

Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.

In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.

Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.

The thing I don’t get is; we now have all these new tools that are supposed to make us more productive - mobiles, computers, apps etc yet measures of productivity like wages are stagnant. It’s not like the productivity gains have been captured by capital - eg the ftse 100’s performance over the period is unimpressive.

I don’t understand it.

The productivity gains are offset by the proliferation of sites like PB. Workers choose to be equally productive and spend more time on PB, rather than more productive with same time on PB

Or you wander past a London construction site, where a round dozen polish blokes are trying to manhandle a picture window sized piece of glass up some scaffolding. Cranes? What are they?

another_richard said:

Does anyone know why Scotland does so few covid tests ?

And which demographics are not being tested in Scotland but are in England ?

Different people at the top of the medical establishment there.

In England, there were a bunch who were adamant that the number of tests couldn't be increased much beyond 50K per day, and that in any case mass testing is bad.... they were bulldozed out of the way.

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.

Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)

You think people are going to object to the price of their Prosecco etc coming down? 🤔

I don't drink the stuff much myself, but I pay for it when I take the Mrs out, so will benefit from this. I'm not going to object to less taxes on her drinks - I can't see many others are.

The Mirror etc will be desperate to get something to 'stick' but cutting the price of a drink that's very popular now across the country across all ages isn't going to be it. The idea that 'bubbles' are for the wealthy hasn't been true for decades now.

Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
15m
Numerous budgets under Osborne and Hammond saw rapid u-turns and a loss of policy credibility. Pasty tax, national insurance contributions being most memorable.

Forensic Labour led by the ‘grown ups’ now seemingly incapable of that. Not landing a tickle, let alone a punch.


===

Erm, would that be Ed Balls who led the attack that led to u-turns?

That Ed Balls?

The arch Brownite? The non Marxist? One of many that the Corbyn Cult wanted out of the way in order to better enable their march to overthrown the capitalist junta?

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦‍♂️

I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦‍♂️

The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Utter brown stuff. That bullshit is worthy of @kinabalu in Brownian nonsense.

Are you proposing we just print money for day-to-day expenditure?

The BoE has stopped buying money already and the deficit is falling fast, already forecast today is to get the deficit falling within three years of the pandemic.

The Tories took over a couple of years after the financial crisis with the deficit staggering 10% of GDP not falling fast.

Brown wrecked the public finances. They're not wrecked now, there's been a recession but we went into it with the deficit closed and its getting rapidly closed now after it.

I can certainly appreciate after the emergency spending of 2020-21 and to an extent 2021-22, the public finances are going to look a lot healthier as the tax receipts come rolling in - perhaps we'll even have a surplus in 2022-23.

The longer-term problem is the accumulation of debt caused by the virus and the long-term management of that debt - did I see it was now the fifth largest single item of public expenditure. Servicing that debt is basically going to be a Ministry in itself for the foreseeable and money spent servicing the debt is money that can't be spent elsewhere or tax cuts which can't be offered.

You are quite right that the issue with debt is how you service it, not how you repay it (since you won't).

Thanks to the stewardship of Osborne onwards, our debt servicing costs have remarkably come down significantly in the past decade rather than going up, as a proportion of GDP. Our debt servicing cost may be the fifth largest item of expenditure but that's not new - and its actually down not up.

Not that remarkably, as interest rates have collapsed to near zero across the developed world.

The Swiss Government issues 10 year government bonds, and is *paid* to do so (they sell a CHF1m bond for over CHF1m!)

That's a fair point and its a risk if interest rates go up again, though its worth remembering the UK has a very long-dated profile of bonds over decades not just ten years.

It does, and the UK has managed its debt maturity profile pretty well.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.

Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)

You think people are going to object to the price of their Prosecco etc coming down? 🤔

I don't drink the stuff much myself, but I pay for it when I take the Mrs out, so will benefit from this. I'm not going to object to less taxes on her drinks - I can't see many others are.

The Mirror etc will be desperate to get something to 'stick' but cutting the price of a drink that's very popular now across the country across all ages isn't going to be it. The idea that 'bubbles' are for the wealthy hasn't been true for decades now.

Rationally, that's probably true, but politics isn't always about the rational. After all, the pasty tax made logical sense.

Rishi can almost certainly get away with this, but it's a foolish priority vfir a tax cut when money is tight and taxes are going up elsewhere.

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦‍♂️

I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦‍♂️

The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.

I recall a story from Rome - I think it was one the Gracchi brothers was in the market place, seeing the corn dole being given out.

He was rather surprised to see a very wealth opponent of the corn dole there. Who said something on the lines of "I don't agree with you sharing out my wealth. But if you are, I am going to be get a piece of it back."

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

RobD said:

Taz said:

RobD said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.

You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!

As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.

This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.

I think it's obvious why.

It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.

Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.

Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!

Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.

The story is less credible than the notion that Leon is a noted flint dildo knapper who travels around the world writing travel stories for the Flint Knapper Gazette.

Well of course that's absurd - obviously he's freelance and writes stories for many reputable flint knapping and antique sex toy publications. Duh.

He has international coverage. His articles can be found in magazines on the top shelves of newsagents throughout Azerbaijan, stained with stale caviar.

Fairliered said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

RobD said:

Taz said:

RobD said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

isam said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Did £5000, then down to £2500 and now back up to £3500. Going to leave it there now.

You’re responsible for £17,000 of the £1,778 traded on the market. Impressive!

As I said yesterday, it's not on Smarkets.

This is a betting site. I don’t understand your reluctance to share where you got this bet and details of it.

I think it's obvious why.

It’s a fair conclusion to draw but he/she doesn’t strike me as someone to lie or mislead about something like that.

Just basing it on the fact that no one else has been able to find a bookie/exchange offering the bet.

Maybe he’s backing and laying it with himself!

Any bookie laying £5k of a weird, niche, easily manipulated market, that’s traded less than 2k on one of the exchanges needs their head examined, if they exist.

The story is less credible than the notion that Leon is a noted flint dildo knapper who travels around the world writing travel stories for the Flint Knapper Gazette.

Well of course that's absurd - obviously he's freelance and writes stories for many reputable flint knapping and antique sex toy publications. Duh.

He has international coverage. His articles can be found in magazines on the top shelves of newsagents throughout Azerbaijan, stained with stale caviar.

I was in a black cab driven by an Azerbaijani just the other day.....

Cyclefree said:

Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.

Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.

That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......

“Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.”

rottenborough said:

Sky News
@SkyNews
"The acid test for this budget isn't how it lands in the next few days but how this lands in the coming months against a backdrop of inflation, predicted to hit 4% next year, and continued cost of living pressures."

Is that a real tweet? Literally no one will be talking about this budget in a year's time.

kle4 said:

Farooq said:

londonpubman said:

Philip_Thompson said:

londonpubman said:

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.

If you want children you should pay for them yourself!

Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.

Child Benefit has existed in one form or another since 1909.

But in the old days eg 1980 people took responsibility for bringing up and paying for their children. Not today (in too many cases).

Yes yes, people are terrible nowadays and the world is going to hell in a handcart. Just like it has been for the last 3000 years.

You must have a rosy view of Ancient Sumer if that only started 3000 years ago.

Now I have a vision of the 4 Ancient Sumerians telling stories about their deprived childhoods over wine....

Cyclefree said:

Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.

Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.

That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......

Might you not tip your hat into the ring?

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦‍♂️

I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦‍♂️

The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.

No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:

They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.

They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.

(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).

If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.

Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.

But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.

And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.

The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.

So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.

Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?

I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?

I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?

Cyclefree said:

Thank God I live on a hill.

1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high....

We felt the same way when Hurricane Ida came through a couple of months back and dropped a month or so of rainfall in a day. We watched our street turn into a minor tributary of the Hudson but it went past us which was good.

Of course to put it into perspective dozens of people drowned in the NJ/NY/CT tri-state area including tragically people in basement apartments in NYC who couldn’t get out in time. And what we got was nothing as bad as the initial impact on Louisiana.

Cyclefree said:

Taz said:

Cyclefree said:

Thank God I live on a hill.

1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......

Will your daughters restaurant be okay ?

Yes, it's nearby.

Kendal may be at risk. And the police are advising avoiding the Ambleside area. Some local roads and fields get a bit waterlogged.

Fingers crossed the rain clouds pass without too much damage.

A friend is walking in Cumbria and nearly got marooned today - planning to take a bus back, waited forever and eventually made her way to a pub who said all the buses had been cancelled. Eventually was able to get a taxi which aquaplaned her to her next stop.

londonpubman said:

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.

If you want children you should pay for them yourself!

Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.

Child benefit was introduced in 1977 actually and rightly so.

Children cost and if no one had them society would die out and the small working population would face a huge tax bill for the health and care costs of the top heavy elderly

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦‍♂️

I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦‍♂️

The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.

No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:

They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.

They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.

(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).

If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.

Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.

But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.

And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.

The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.

So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.

Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?

I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?

I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?

The problem is that we're juggling two things:

You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.

But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.

It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.

The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:

Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.

Does society need more children or not?

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦‍♂️

I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦‍♂️

The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.

No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:

They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.

They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.

(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).

If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.

Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.

But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.

And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.

The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.

So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.

Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?

I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?

I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?

The problem is that we're juggling two things:

You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.

But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.

It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.

The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:

Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.

Does society need more children or not?

The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap

Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?

It inevitably increases the tax burden on the working age population to cover the health and care costs of the elderly and lowers economic growth.

A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation

Not everyone benefited from the budget today according to Peston earlier.

While those on the living wage saw a boost and those in work on UC did too and pub and club and cafe owners also were winners, single people out of work will still see a £19 a week pay fall. They therefore joined port and sherry drinkers as the main losers

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeL said:

People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:

Single person, 2 children:

Gross salary £40,000
Rent £150/week
Child care £100/week
Pension contributions £1,200/year
Council Tax £1,200/year

Gets £155.57 UC per week

(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)

It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.

NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36

The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79

Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.

That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.

Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦‍♂️

I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦‍♂️

The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.

No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:

They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.

They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.

(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).

If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.

Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.

But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.

And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.

The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.

So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.

Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?

I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?

I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?

The problem is that we're juggling two things:

You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.

But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.

It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.

The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:

Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.

Does society need more children or not?

The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap

Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?

It inevitably increases the tax burden on the working age population to cover the health and care costs of the elderly and lowers economic growth.

A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation

One only has to look at Italy and Japan to see what happens when you combine terrible birthrates and rising life expectancy.

Charles said:

Taz said:

Never had caviar. Probably never will.

I usually have lumpfish caviar.

90% of the taste at a fraction of the cost

I'll have some of that for supper.

New thread. (Of course there is!)