Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
There was no need to increase any taxes on income. It's time to introduce a tax on property wealth beyond primary residences. Anyone who owns more than one house can and should pay a lot more tax and very high marginal rates on earned income from those non-primary residential properties.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
I worded the post I referred to carefully to point out the difference between the spirit and the letter of the question.
I mean, you could say that dishing out corrupt contracts to mates will probably benefit the son or daughter of one of the cronies, so hooray, someone under 30 benefits from that too... but is it really embracing the spirit of the question?
Few policies, other than the triple lock, which the government have at least temporarily given up on, are focused on one particular age group. Most, at least in theory, are intended to benefit us all. What I was trying to do was identify policies that are more likely to benefit the young than the old. I would not dispute for a second it is easier to do the reverse.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
That smells of careful sophistry. Where do pensions come into this? And other income from wealth? Why did the Chancellor target NI as a way of trying to increase tax?
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
There was no need to increase any taxes on income. It's time to introduce a tax on property wealth beyond primary residences. Anyone who owns more than one house can and should pay a lot more tax and very high marginal rates on earned income from those non-primary residential properties.
If you're going to copy all my points, can you have the decency to wait until after I've posted mine instead of doing it 2 minutes before me? That's twice you've done it now; nobody likes a copycat.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
In terms of benefits, it depends on the mechanism. The change to the taper rate had a big impact on people roughly 3/4 median (equivalised!) household income, and thus people around the poverty line (60% median income).
The £20 uplift was good for much poorer people. But both are dwarfed by particularly harsh policies like the two child limit.
I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.
I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
Speak for yourself!
Our rabbit is much nicer than any dog I've met.
I cast no personal judgement here. My friend has a pet rabbit and it’s one of the loveliest pets I have ever met!
My daughter had 2 pet rabbits. Thank god they died, eventually.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
That smells of careful sophistry. Where do pensions come into this? And other income from wealth? Why did the Chancellor target NI as a way of trying to increase tax?
So the devolved governments couldn't fiddle with it.
The NI rise is absolutely crackers, and was always crackers. It will go down like the proverbial and will be reversed/mitigated out of existence in short order.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Have Labour and the LDs called for the defunding of the NHS? B****rds!
No but he asked for a policy, and the national insurance increase is such a policy. It may not be the best approach, and there is certainly a case for also targeting unearned income, but it is trying to fund the nhs.
Funding the NHS isn't a Conservative USP. How and to what tune the NHS is serviced may demonstrate clear blue water between parties. As you say, Sunak's means is a contentious one.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
I worded the post I referred to carefully to point out the difference between the spirit and the letter of the question.
I mean, you could say that dishing out corrupt contracts to mates will probably benefit the son or daughter of one of the cronies, so hooray, someone under 30 benefits from that too... but is it really embracing the spirit of the question?
Few policies, other than the triple lock, which the government have at least temporarily given up on, are focused on one particular age group. Most, at least in theory, are intended to benefit us all. What I was trying to do was identify policies that are more likely to benefit the young than the old. I would not dispute for a second it is easier to do the reverse.
I honestly can't think of a single policy that this government has geared towards young people, it's a huge change from the Dave/George years who were pretty good at ensuring everyone shared in the proceeds of economic growth rather than just old people. The worst part is that working age people are being impoverished to shovel cash to old people, it's not even a case of older people benefiting more than young people, this is simply theft of economic gains from working age people to buy votes from old people.
The NI rise is absolutely crackers, and was always crackers. It will go down like the proverbial and will be reversed/mitigated out of existence in short order.
The problem is that the Tory trick will be to lower income tax at which point it is simply a transfer of wealth from working age people (still paying more NI) to retired people (get an income tax cut).
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
I worded the post I referred to carefully to point out the difference between the spirit and the letter of the question.
I mean, you could say that dishing out corrupt contracts to mates will probably benefit the son or daughter of one of the cronies, so hooray, someone under 30 benefits from that too... but is it really embracing the spirit of the question?
Few policies, other than the triple lock, which the government have at least temporarily given up on, are focused on one particular age group. Most, at least in theory, are intended to benefit us all. What I was trying to do was identify policies that are more likely to benefit the young than the old. I would not dispute for a second it is easier to do the reverse.
Universal Credit Standard Allowance for single people under 25. Or a much reduced earnings taper rate. Or a work allowance even if you don't have kids.
I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.
I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
I think the point is that doing so will have the side effect of massively pushing up freight costs for UK businesses who are already seeing surging shipping costs. Most cargo ships are crewed by below minimum wage people from Asia on Panama flagged ships.
The key is going to be ruining their reputation and getting British people to take alternative means of transport to France.
Again, though, it would be very easy for the government to distinguish between cargo and ferries (as Ishmael said on the PT). It’s arbitrary but as I have pointed out above there are loads of arbitrary distinctions in English law.
If it is so absolutely trivial, why is literally not a single person in the political or media advocating for this? And they aren't normally too slow on advocating policies that in theory are possible but in real world terms don't hold up.
Starmer, who was super quick to (wrongly) claim the UK could just cut Russia off from SWIFT and all other Labour representatives aren't calling for anything like this. Their response is 100% focused upon a law banning fire / rehire (which I doubt applies here because old employees were employed in Jersey, new ones via Malta / Cyprus) and going forward excluding P&O from public sector contracts.
I haven't heard a single person saying well all we need to do is make a simple change to the law to ensure P&O can't operate in British ports.
Because there are consequences to doing it. And that there may well be better ways of achieving the same goal (such as on government contracting). Yet that doesn’t mean it cannot be done. Your original claim was that it was impossible - an utter nonsense.
The original claim was regards enforcing minimum wage on P&O employees as it stands. It is true the UK government has no direct power over that. Can you directly ban the likes of P&O sailing around paying people such crap wages and treating them really poorly, again seems no.
Now, can you concoct some sort of legislation that might restrict access to operating a ferry service unless they meet some standard. OK, fine, I will give you that in theory yes. But, I am sure subject to a load of legal challenges about cargo vs ferry etc.
And literally nobody in a position of influence is suggesting that it is a workable / practical solution. Which suggests in reality it is a non-starter / not practical, because it will have all these other knock-on effects relating to the general maritime industry.
I mean in theory, Jezza as PM, could do his policy of seizing private property and nationalising. But that ain't going to happen either.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
I worded the post I referred to carefully to point out the difference between the spirit and the letter of the question.
I mean, you could say that dishing out corrupt contracts to mates will probably benefit the son or daughter of one of the cronies, so hooray, someone under 30 benefits from that too... but is it really embracing the spirit of the question?
Few policies, other than the triple lock, which the government have at least temporarily given up on, are focused on one particular age group. Most, at least in theory, are intended to benefit us all. What I was trying to do was identify policies that are more likely to benefit the young than the old. I would not dispute for a second it is easier to do the reverse.
I honestly can't think of a single policy that this government has geared towards young people, it's a huge change from the Dave/George years who were pretty good at ensuring everyone shared in the proceeds of economic growth rather than just old people. The worst part is that working age people are being impoverished to shovel cash to old people, it's not even a case of older people benefiting more than young people, this is simply theft of economic gains from working age people to buy votes from old people.
The NI rise was technically progressive as a proportion of disposable income.
It's just the marginal utility of disposable income is much higher for people on lower incomes.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
I worded the post I referred to carefully to point out the difference between the spirit and the letter of the question.
I mean, you could say that dishing out corrupt contracts to mates will probably benefit the son or daughter of one of the cronies, so hooray, someone under 30 benefits from that too... but is it really embracing the spirit of the question?
Few policies, other than the triple lock, which the government have at least temporarily given up on, are focused on one particular age group. Most, at least in theory, are intended to benefit us all. What I was trying to do was identify policies that are more likely to benefit the young than the old. I would not dispute for a second it is easier to do the reverse.
I honestly can't think of a single policy that this government has geared towards young people, it's a huge change from the Dave/George years who were pretty good at ensuring everyone shared in the proceeds of economic growth rather than just old people. The worst part is that working age people are being impoverished to shovel cash to old people, it's not even a case of older people benefiting more than young people, this is simply theft of economic gains from working age people to buy votes from old people.
The NI rise was technically progressive as a proportion of disposable income.
It's just the marginal utility of disposable income is much higher for people on lower incomes.
But that's looking at the income scale, not the old/young divide as old people don't pay NI on pension income. There's never been anything smart about stealing from Peter to pay Paul, that's what the government are doing, they are stealing from workers to purchase votes from retirees, there's simply no more to the NI rise than that.
The NI rise is absolutely crackers, and was always crackers. It will go down like the proverbial and will be reversed/mitigated out of existence in short order.
Isn't the problem that the size, complexity and distribution of the PAYE system makes handbrake turns on tax and NI hopelessly impractical?
Same goes for income tax thresholds; freezing them looks like a painful mistake but hard to fix in the next fortnight, even if Rishi didn't need the money, which he does.
The NI rise is absolutely crackers, and was always crackers. It will go down like the proverbial and will be reversed/mitigated out of existence in short order.
The problem is that the Tory trick will be to lower income tax at which point it is simply a transfer of wealth from working age people (still paying more NI) to retired people (get an income tax cut).
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
There was no need to increase any taxes on income. It's time to introduce a tax on property wealth beyond primary residences. Anyone who owns more than one house can and should pay a lot more tax and very high marginal rates on earned income from those non-primary residential properties.
At least the earned income suggests the property is being used. We want to encourage the efficient use of capital, i.e. for properties to be occupied one way or another.
The NI rise is absolutely crackers, and was always crackers. It will go down like the proverbial and will be reversed/mitigated out of existence in short order.
And they managed to come up with the increased complexity through a ridiculous convoluted new category of it.....tax on workers, tax on jobs, increased cost / complexity of payroll trying to sort the damn thing out. Its like the asked Gordo to come up with it.
The thing is now the genie is out the bottle, if it isn't rolled back, only a matter of time before the new super special NI extra tax gets bumped up a bit more / changed to increase take.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
There was no need to increase any taxes on income. It's time to introduce a tax on property wealth beyond primary residences. Anyone who owns more than one house can and should pay a lot more tax and very high marginal rates on earned income from those non-primary residential properties.
At least the earned income suggests the property is being used. We want to encourage the efficient use of capital, i.e. for properties to be occupied one way or another.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties. Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit. Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax. I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero. All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.
CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.
Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
There was no need to increase any taxes on income. It's time to introduce a tax on property wealth beyond primary residences. Anyone who owns more than one house can and should pay a lot more tax and very high marginal rates on earned income from those non-primary residential properties.
At least the earned income suggests the property is being used. We want to encourage the efficient use of capital, i.e. for properties to be occupied one way or another.
I's also have prohibitive taxes on empty property, 200% annual value surcharge. I'd also funnel people into build to let with generous non-transferable tax exemptions and income tax rates.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
I worded the post I referred to carefully to point out the difference between the spirit and the letter of the question.
I mean, you could say that dishing out corrupt contracts to mates will probably benefit the son or daughter of one of the cronies, so hooray, someone under 30 benefits from that too... but is it really embracing the spirit of the question?
Few policies, other than the triple lock, which the government have at least temporarily given up on, are focused on one particular age group. Most, at least in theory, are intended to benefit us all. What I was trying to do was identify policies that are more likely to benefit the young than the old. I would not dispute for a second it is easier to do the reverse.
I honestly can't think of a single policy that this government has geared towards young people, it's a huge change from the Dave/George years who were pretty good at ensuring everyone shared in the proceeds of economic growth rather than just old people. The worst part is that working age people are being impoverished to shovel cash to old people, it's not even a case of older people benefiting more than young people, this is simply theft of economic gains from working age people to buy votes from old people.
The NI rise was technically progressive as a proportion of disposable income.
It's just the marginal utility of disposable income is much higher for people on lower incomes.
But that's looking at the income scale, not the old/young divide as old people don't pay NI on pension income. There's never been anything smart about stealing from Peter to pay Paul, that's what the government are doing, they are stealing from workers to purchase votes from retirees, there's simply no more to the NI rise than that.
Benefits in kind are tricky to model. I've never done a old/young analysis before, other than noticing that the poverty rate for older people is surprisingly high.
Would be interesting to model everything from 2010, and 1997-2010, and see what the differences are.
Putting aside the oldies for a moment, what is the argument against just combing NI / IC, and then if you want to increase take you do that by adjusting the levels at which those different rates are paid?
If it is just the issues of oldies being hit by this, it can't be beyond the wit of man to work out adjustments to compensate against the worst parts of the fact NI / IC has been combined (and perhaps taking a bit more of the very rich pensioners).
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
On top of everything else, they didn't even bother to have enough kids to create a working generation below them large enough to support them.
And then moaned about foreigners coming in to do the work that needed doing...
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
A big chunk of this is people having absolutely no awareness of the inflation in housing costs and tuition (if you're English). "I worked weekends and paid my mortgage while I was at Uni" is a pretty common Facebook comment.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
A big chunk of this is people having absolutely no awareness of the inflation in housing costs and tuition (if you're English). "I worked weekends and paid my mortgage while I was at Uni" is a pretty common Facebook comment.
Indeed, my parents were shocked as to how expensive my house was, it's the same size as their house and in a similar kind of London suburb. It cost ca. 20x what they paid for their house in the mid-1990s.
One of the things that rarely talked about in terms of cost of uni is not just the fees, things like halls are a massive rip off. They are super expensive these days, often more than a mortgage on a property and many charge for large periods students aren't even there. Unless you parents are well off, that means you need max loan etc etc etc to pay for £150-200 a week for cost of halls alone.
Putting aside the oldies for a moment, what is the argument against just combing NI / IC, and then if you want to increase take you do that by adjusting the levels at which those different rates are paid?
If it is just the issues of oldies being hit by this, it can't be beyond the wit of man to work out adjustments to compensate against the worst parts of the fact NI / IC has been combined (and perhaps taking a bit more of the very rich pensioners).
Myself and some other Free marketers on hear and elsewhere have been advocating this for what seams like forever, there being many advantages for this, not least simplification and the assonated saving in administering 2 systems. for a long time we have been ridiculed for this idea, but I never really understood the objections. but part of it is also what to me seems like fairness. If you have a load of money 1 million say and are living off the interest form that, then in my eyes fine, it does not matter where the money came form so long as its legaly, maybe you won the lottery, or got it from a divorce settlement, maybe you where in a band that had a one hit wonder in the '80' or you invented some gadget and got a patent, it does not mater you have the money and a right to enjoy it. perhaps you get 4% so are living off £40,000 a year, good for you. but why should you pay less tax than somebody who is earning £40,000 by working in a factory or office. it make no scene to me.
One of the things that rarely talked about in terms of cost of uni is not just the fees, things like halls are a massive rip off. They are super expensive these days, often more than a mortgage on a property and many charge for large periods students aren't even there. Unless you parents are well off, that means you need max loan etc etc etc to pay for £150-200 a week for cost of halls alone.
And a key phrase there is “unless your parents are well off”.
Apart from anything else, punitive housing and education costs make it almost impossible for a smart working class kid to ascend into the middle classes. It’s a recipe for class stagnation and a colossal waste of human capital.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
Nah, HTB is a shit policy. The Nationwide helping hand mortgage for FTB is much more helpful from what I can tell. Osborne was pursuing a tough on landlords policy which Rishi and Hammond simply gave up on, that would help under 30s get on the housing ladder more than anything else. The Cameron/Osborne government seemed to understand that creating homeowners was a way of creating Tory voters and the easiest way to free up housing stock for owner occupation was to turn landlords into forced sellers.
Takes us back to the Johnson paradox.
Because he tells his audience what they want to hear, he's bloody good at winning elections.
Because he tells his audience what they want to hear, he's bloody awful at using his victories.
Thatch, Cameron, they knew how to invest spare popularity to extend the Conservative circle. Major and May had the same instincts, albeit they were less good at it and had a smaller pot of popularity to play with.
Same was true of Blair, and Starmer is doing a decent job of getting some sort of return from a lousy inheritance.
Johnson doesn't seem capable of doing that- he just panders to those in front of him, even if it repels others.
It's also why I don't totally buy the "midterm, swingback to come" model. Thatcher engineered midterm unpopularity to get things done. BoJo's dips have come from helping out his mates or having parties; those won't give a positive payback in two years time.
If Johnson rocks up to Lviv in his military fatigues as Dowden says he is "desperate" so to do, that might give Johnson some genuine kudos and mid term popularity to match, which may last to the GE.
That said, the man is either incredibly brave or a f****** moron.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
On the above topic, I'd probably predict May's election results as:
Lab 35% Con 33% LD 16%.
Tories have shored up although Labour hasn't really declined. I agree with OGH's conclusions. I can see how the Tories might surprise on the upside in Scotland, Midlands and even parts of London even if they get hammered in Northern Met districts and do relatively badly in Wales.
Putting aside the oldies for a moment, what is the argument against just combing NI / IC, and then if you want to increase take you do that by adjusting the levels at which those different rates are paid?
If it is just the issues of oldies being hit by this, it can't be beyond the wit of man to work out adjustments to compensate against the worst parts of the fact NI / IC has been combined (and perhaps taking a bit more of the very rich pensioners).
Myself and some other Free marketers on hear and elsewhere have been advocating this for what seams like forever, there being many advantages for this, not least simplification and the assonated saving in administering 2 systems. for a long time we have been ridiculed for this idea, but I never really understood the objections. but part of it is also what to me seems like fairness. If you have a load of money 1 million say and are living off the interest form that, then in my eyes fine, it does not matter where the money came form so long as its legaly, maybe you won the lottery, or got it from a divorce settlement, maybe you where in a band that had a one hit wonder in the '80' or you invented some gadget and got a patent, it does not mater you have the money and a right to enjoy it. perhaps you get 4% so are living off £40,000 a year, good for you. but why should you pay less tax than somebody who is earning £40,000 by working in a factory or office. it make no scene to me.
Instead we are moving in the opposite direct to a model of NI, NI+ and IC.
On the above topic, I'd probably predict May's election results as:
Lab 35% Con 33% LD 16%.
Tories have shored up although Labour hasn't really declined. I agree with OGH's conclusions. I can see how the Tories might surprise on the upside in Scotland, Midlands and even parts of London even if they get hammered in Northern Met districts and do relatively badly in Wales.
Polls seem to see them slipping in Scotland. I can imagine some upside in the Midlands, though.
Le Pen and Melenchon consolidating. 15% is a high for Melenchon. Macron slipping.
That's the best Le Pen poll for a long time, and a pretty awful Macron one.
Le Pen is getting some momentum at the right time, and her second round polling against Macron held up pretty well even during his bounce when he was negotiating with Putin.
On the above topic, I'd probably predict May's election results as:
Lab 35% Con 33% LD 16%.
Tories have shored up although Labour hasn't really declined. I agree with OGH's conclusions. I can see how the Tories might surprise on the upside in Scotland, Midlands and even parts of London even if they get hammered in Northern Met districts and do relatively badly in Wales.
I would expect based on current polling the Tories to do better in the North and Wales and certainly the Midlands than London. On current polling the swing to Labour since 2018 when May was PM and Corbyn Labour leader and the council seats up this year were last up is far bigger in London than anywhere else in the UK.
Remember in 2019 the Tories voteshare fall by 1.2% in London compared to 2017 even if Boris got a big swing towards him across the UK and UK wide the Tory vote rose by 1.2% since 2017. Starmer goes down better in posh Remain areas of London than Corbyn did, while Boris goes down generally worse than May there
Le Pen and Melenchon consolidating. 15% is a high for Melenchon. Macron slipping.
That's the best Le Pen poll for a long time, and a pretty awful Macron one.
As Mike mentioned before, Macron's response to the Corsican issue hasn't been great but I do wonder, bizarrely, whether his whole hoodie episode has not been a major issue here. The French like their Presidents to be, well, Presidential, especially as they embody the Republic. Macron turning up like an ageing groupie off to a Pearl Jam concert is never going to go do well.
Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
NMW and high personal allowances. Modern Apprenticeships.
Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
Nah, HTB is a shit policy. The Nationwide helping hand mortgage for FTB is much more helpful from what I can tell. Osborne was pursuing a tough on landlords policy which Rishi and Hammond simply gave up on, that would help under 30s get on the housing ladder more than anything else. The Cameron/Osborne government seemed to understand that creating homeowners was a way of creating Tory voters and the easiest way to free up housing stock for owner occupation was to turn landlords into forced sellers.
Takes us back to the Johnson paradox.
Because he tells his audience what they want to hear, he's bloody good at winning elections.
Because he tells his audience what they want to hear, he's bloody awful at using his victories.
Thatch, Cameron, they knew how to invest spare popularity to extend the Conservative circle. Major and May had the same instincts, albeit they were less good at it and had a smaller pot of popularity to play with.
Same was true of Blair, and Starmer is doing a decent job of getting some sort of return from a lousy inheritance.
Johnson doesn't seem capable of doing that- he just panders to those in front of him, even if it repels others.
It's also why I don't totally buy the "midterm, swingback to come" model. Thatcher engineered midterm unpopularity to get things done. BoJo's dips have come from helping out his mates or having parties; those won't give a positive payback in two years time.
If Johnson rocks up to Lviv in his military fatigues as Dowden says he is "desperate" so to do, that might give Johnson some genuine kudos and mid term popularity to match, which may last to the GE.
That said, the man is either incredibly brave or a f****** moron.
We know the fridge magnet isn't incredibly brave, so..
99% certain it'll be 'bloody powers that be kyboshed it, Christ, I only wish I could be there' while a dissolving Nadine looks on and helpful muppets live tweet the moment.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
I suspect this is a sign that Putin is very reluctant to redeploy any genuine additional forces to Ukraine, perhaps because he's afraid of the consequences for political stability in Russia.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
I suspect this is a sign that Putin is very reluctant to redeploy any genuine additional forces to Ukraine, perhaps because he's afraid of the consequences for political stability in Russia.
Reluctant or cant?
Russia has a large armed force on paper 950,000 person strong, but how much is useable? he cant really send the crow from a submarine, or personnel form air force, similar the nuclear troops. so its army and naval infantry. He has already stated that there will be no more Russian conscripts in Ukraine, I don't think he would mind braking that promise, but its different sending in somebody in month 11 and month 1 of there 12 month conception period. and anyway there need Officers and NCOs to go with them. Of the regular solders, some may have existed on paper only other will be ill at any one point in time. of the usable men he will need to keep some around the boarder and protecting over vital points.
He still has 40,000 'elite' by (Russian standards) men near Moscow, but does he dare send them? if he does and then there is the risk that he cant put down a big protest/revelation in Moscow.
“Russia continues to deploy low-quality reserves, including combat-support elements and low-readiness units from the Eastern Military District, to replace losses in frontline units.
Most of the troops prepositioned were of a fairly high quality, while replacement troops and equipment will be somewhat worse. Russia does seem willing to throw bodies at the problem though.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
Putting aside the oldies for a moment, what is the argument against just combing NI / IC, and then if you want to increase take you do that by adjusting the levels at which those different rates are paid?
If it is just the issues of oldies being hit by this, it can't be beyond the wit of man to work out adjustments to compensate against the worst parts of the fact NI / IC has been combined (and perhaps taking a bit more of the very rich pensioners).
There are quite a number of anomalies, and, as ever, the losers out of merging them will complain more loudly than the people who gain will be grateful.
One example is that National Insurance is charged on pension contributions, but then not charged on pension income. So if you merge NI and IT then you will end up taxing income from pensions twice.
We also have this weird situation in which the branding of National Insurance means that it's actually quite a popular tax to increase, certainly more popular than Income Tax, even though it is in many respects a less fair tax to increase, what with National Insurance not being charged on capital gains, or dividend income, so from a simple political point of view a Chancellor would have to be mad to effectively abolish National Insurance and increase Income Tax by 10% or so.
Instead, the political imperative is to drive in the other direction, and the new "NHS & Social Care Levy" will only accelerate the process, as will the next iteration, the "Precept for Angelic Nurses".
I can't think of any way to solve this except by replacing Income Tax, with a new "Income-Related NHS Contribution" (that is otherwise identical).
Putting aside the oldies for a moment, what is the argument against just combing NI / IC, and then if you want to increase take you do that by adjusting the levels at which those different rates are paid?
If it is just the issues of oldies being hit by this, it can't be beyond the wit of man to work out adjustments to compensate against the worst parts of the fact NI / IC has been combined (and perhaps taking a bit more of the very rich pensioners).
There are quite a number of anomalies, and, as ever, the losers out of merging them will complain more loudly than the people who gain will be grateful.
One example is that National Insurance is charged on pension contributions, but then not charged on pension income. So if you merge NI and IT then you will end up taxing income from pensions twice.
We also have this weird situation in which the branding of National Insurance means that it's actually quite a popular tax to increase, certainly more popular than Income Tax, even though it is in many respects a less fair tax to increase, what with National Insurance not being charged on capital gains, or dividend income, so from a simple political point of view a Chancellor would have to be mad to effectively abolish National Insurance and increase Income Tax by 10% or so.
Instead, the political imperative is to drive in the other direction, and the new "NHS & Social Care Levy" will only accelerate the process, as will the next iteration, the "Precept for Angelic Nurses".
I can't think of any way to solve this except by replacing Income Tax, with a new "Income-Related NHS Contribution" (that is otherwise identical).
This is an excellent idea, but I'll give you a refinement to it from a PR perspective (as it needs to be three words max). Combine it all and rebrand it as "Income Insurance Contribution" - You're insuring against risk for income and giving your income. Remove tax entirely from the words and it is seen as far more virtious, done.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
This excerpt jumped out at me:
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
Putting aside the oldies for a moment, what is the argument against just combing NI / IC, and then if you want to increase take you do that by adjusting the levels at which those different rates are paid?
If it is just the issues of oldies being hit by this, it can't be beyond the wit of man to work out adjustments to compensate against the worst parts of the fact NI / IC has been combined (and perhaps taking a bit more of the very rich pensioners).
There are quite a number of anomalies, and, as ever, the losers out of merging them will complain more loudly than the people who gain will be grateful.
One example is that National Insurance is charged on pension contributions, but then not charged on pension income. So if you merge NI and IT then you will end up taxing income from pensions twice.
We also have this weird situation in which the branding of National Insurance means that it's actually quite a popular tax to increase, certainly more popular than Income Tax, even though it is in many respects a less fair tax to increase, what with National Insurance not being charged on capital gains, or dividend income, so from a simple political point of view a Chancellor would have to be mad to effectively abolish National Insurance and increase Income Tax by 10% or so.
Instead, the political imperative is to drive in the other direction, and the new "NHS & Social Care Levy" will only accelerate the process, as will the next iteration, the "Precept for Angelic Nurses".
I can't think of any way to solve this except by replacing Income Tax, with a new "Income-Related NHS Contribution" (that is otherwise identical).
That is why I said ignoring the oldies from this....
As for branding, I wish government would get away from worrying about that and thinking about what is the best policies.
"The only thing that I would say that's different since the last time we had a chance to talk is that we have seen some increased naval activity in the northern Black Sea."
"The Russians have a little bit more than a dozen warships, different stripes and sizes -- amphibious ships, surface combatants, mine sweeper and some patrol boats that they've got up in the northern Black Sea"
"It is not clear that this is an imminent pre-staging sign of an amphibious assault on Odesa, so it would be, at this point, we would assess that it would be wrong to conclude that this is somehow an indication that Odesa is under an imminent threat of an amphibious assault"
"On the hypersonic claim that the Russians made, we're not able to refute it, but we can't independently confirm it, either. It's not entirely clear. So what we would assess is it's certainly possible. But it's a bit of a head-scratcher, to be honest with you"
"it's not exactly clear why, if it's true, why would you need a hypersonic missile fired from not that far away to hit a building? It could be that they're running low on precision-guided munitions and feel like they need to tap into that resource."
"It could be that they're trying to send a message to the west, but also to Ukraine, and trying to gain some leverage at the negotiating table. But it's a -- from a military perspective, if it was a hypersonic missile there's not a whole lot of practicality about it."
Responding to a question on leadership- "The other thing is, Jack -- and people forget this... they [Russia] don't organize their military the way we do. They don't have an equivalent to a noncommissioned officers corps, for instance"
"And their [Russia] junior officers don't have the same wherewithal, flexibility... they don't invest in their junior officers the kind of initiative that we do."
"You know that we [the US] put a lot into an E-4 and an E-5 and an E-6 to -- to make decisions literally in the moment on the battlefield. They don't have that kind of a tradition. They don't have that structure."
"We believe that they [Russia] are having command-and-control problems just in terms of communications... they just weren't fully prepared for operations of this intensity for this long on so many different multiple lines of attack"
"We do see them having some command-and-control difficulties, both in terms of a military operational concept issue, being able to integrate air to ground, to make decisions in real-time effectively, but also in terms of their ability to communicate over established links."
"We're seeing them [Russia] use a lot more unclassified communications because their classified communications capability is -- is being -- is -- well, for one reason or another, is not as strong as it should be."
In response to a change in strategy- "What we assess is that they [Russia] are looking for a chance to break out, they are looking for a chance to gain some momentum, not even re-gain momentum, because they never really had it, and that's what's so frustrating for them."
"I mean, when you look at the map, you can count literally on one hand the number of population centers that we assess are in Russian control right now."
"So what -- so what have they gained in -- in now 26 days? They got Melitopol', they got Berdyans'k and they got Kherson. That's it. They don't have Kyiv, they don't have Kharkiv, they don't have Mariupol, although... I mean, there's a lot of fighting going on there."
"They [Russia] haven't achieved anything, in terms of what we assess to be their objectives, which is population centers so that they could occupy and take over Ukraine."
"With these increased long range fires, missile strikes, artillery bombardments, in trying to encircle cities so that you can lob more long range fires into those cities, is a reflection of what some people believe is a desperate attempt by them [Russia] to gain some momentum,"
"And rather than demoralizing the Ukrainians, I think you've all seen that this kind of violence has only motivated them more, which means that they're resisting more, which means the Russians continue to get frustrated and flummoxed and kind of stuck where they are."
"I mean, my goodness, here we are, day 26, they're still -- we still hold them a good 15 kilometers northwest of Kyiv, which is where they were last week. We still hold them about 30 kilometers from the east of Kyiv, which is where they were last week when we talked before."
"Again, not that we're pushing back on this idea of a war of attrition but we're not exactly using that phrase here. What we're seeing is a near desperate attempt by the Russians to gain some momentum and try to turn the course of this in their favor."
"And -- and doing so could simply be -- again, could -- I want to emphasize the word "could" -- could simply be an attempt to improve their position at the negotiating table, to get some kind of leverage, because right now, it doesn't appear like they have a lot of leverage"
There has been talk for some time about Putin's off ramps over Ukraine, his failure to have any in the run up to this and what the possible off ramps are now.
The collective West needs to give Putin no such route. He either creates it through military gains or not at all. Whilst the outcome of the military conflict is in the balance, the fact its even in the balance should be an indication that the West should redouble its efforts, not open a door.
Russia's military losses are bad. If the larger end of the claims are anywhere near reality, they are very bad. The Russian military cannot sustain those losses without having to pull fresh formations in, but to do that they may have to call up more reservists rather than call on standing military units because there is only so much left of those. Calling up substantive reservists has its own problems.
On the battlefield there are indications the Ukrainians have cut off some advance Russian elements on the left flank of Kyiv via an attack from the west. For the first time there is the possibility of a choke being established. If they pull it off it will represent the first sizeable defeat for Russian forces where they are ceding land.
The South East by the Black Sea and Sea of Azov is another major Russian target and the Ukrainians currently don't seem yet able to halt or reverse the gains. Russia is putting a lot of effort in here and has the better cards to play. Recognition of occupied areas here as Russian territory is considered to be one of the things Putin will look for to claim success in any peace deal. Somewhere along that Azov coast the Ukrainians need to push the Russians out. If they somehow can, Putin loses another bargaining chip and he hasn't got too many right now, hence why he will continue to pursue the conflict.
I mentioned a lot of days back that, despite the talk, the idea of direct Western intervention of some kind isn't as off the table as it looks and that some capitals had already recognised this. A humanitarian situation too severe to ignore is a possibility as is a Russian escalation that is seen as outside the Ukraine borders.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
I suspect this is a sign that Putin is very reluctant to redeploy any genuine additional forces to Ukraine, perhaps because he's afraid of the consequences for political stability in Russia.
I think that's spot on (and @BigRich made the same observation).
It shows the trouble Putin is in: he doesn't have the troops to bring Ukraine to heel without moving them from other parts of his Empire. But if he does that, he risks rebellions or other demonstrations that he will be unable to suppress.
And so he struggles in Ukraine, and his strength is sapped, and the world risks a nuclear or chemical attack in a European country, because Putin sees that as the only way to hold on to power.
Russian military comms are having problems because some of the divisional and corps level secure kit doesn't work very well and as I posted a while back, there are reports someone is heavily disrupting battlefield comms. The Russians have their suspicions about who but its a short list.
These comms issues are put forward one of the reasons why a such a number of senior officers have been killed. they have been forced to go to the front lines to get a picture of what is going on and direct their troops because the comms have been a mess.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
That house is pokey as hell, glazed with UVC, and you can barely swing a cat in the back garden.
It kind of proves my point.
You can get this - looks around 3000 sq ft - for literally less than the one you showed me.
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
Montclair is a nice town, and the only aspect of zip code that is important in house prices is what high school catchment area the property is in. If the public high school is good, prices are high. Big price differential if the high school is yikes!!!
PS Certainly could not use Welwyn Garden City as a comp for Montclair.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
I suspect this is a sign that Putin is very reluctant to redeploy any genuine additional forces to Ukraine, perhaps because he's afraid of the consequences for political stability in Russia.
I think that's spot on (and @BigRich made the same observation).
It shows the trouble Putin is in: he doesn't have the troops to bring Ukraine to heel without moving them from other parts of his Empire. But if he does that, he risks rebellions or other demonstrations that he will be unable to suppress.
And so he struggles in Ukraine, and his strength is sapped, and the world risks a nuclear or chemical attack in a European country, because Putin sees that as the only way to hold on to power.
I am less convinced re the use of chemical / nuclear weapons. As well as the issue of Chinese opposition, one other reason is that Russia has paid the interest on its debt and avoided default. That suggests Russia wants to not demolish completely its relations with the West, as it believes the West will eventually tire of sanctions (admittedly, it could also be a signal to say Russia is confident enough to pay the debt). Use chemical / nuclear weapons, Russia can kiss goodbye to that.
Re redeployment, there are already signs though that Russia has redeployed troops from peacekeeping areas, such as South Ossetia and Armenia. So, I think he is getting desperate and taking risks, although I would not expect Georgia to take advantage of the situation (rightly, because the geography doesn't help it).
Re the DNR / LNR, calling up those to the age of 65 and giving them ancient rifles, it's likely these would be used to keep order behind the lines but, again, it is a signal that Russia is raiding the stores to supply troops. There was an interesting pic of an old T-72A that was captured near Kyiv. In the "new" Russian army, that tank should have been nowhere near the front.
There has been talk for some time about Putin's off ramps over Ukraine, his failure to have any in the run up to this and what the possible off ramps are now.
The collective West needs to give Putin no such route. He either creates it through military gains or not at all. Whilst the outcome of the military conflict is in the balance, the fact its even in the balance should be an indication that the West should redouble its efforts, not open a door.
Russia's military losses are bad. If the larger end of the claims are anywhere near reality, they are very bad. The Russian military cannot sustain those losses without having to pull fresh formations in, but to do that they may have to call up more reservists rather than call on standing military units because there is only so much left of those. Calling up substantive reservists has its own problems.
On the battlefield there are indications the Ukrainians have cut off some advance Russian elements on the left flank of Kyiv via an attack from the west. For the first time there is the possibility of a choke being established. If they pull it off it will represent the first sizeable defeat for Russian forces where they are ceding land.
The South East by the Black Sea and Sea of Azov is another major Russian target and the Ukrainians currently don't seem yet able to halt or reverse the gains. Russia is putting a lot of effort in here and has the better cards to play. Recognition of occupied areas here as Russian territory is considered to be one of the things Putin will look for to claim success in any peace deal. Somewhere along that Azov coast the Ukrainians need to push the Russians out. If they somehow can, Putin loses another bargaining chip and he hasn't got too many right now, hence why he will continue to pursue the conflict.
I mentioned a lot of days back that, despite the talk, the idea of direct Western intervention of some kind isn't as off the table as it looks and that some capitals had already recognised this. A humanitarian situation too severe to ignore is a possibility as is a Russian escalation that is seen as outside the Ukraine borders.
I'm a bit of of a cynic but my view is that the Ukrainians might not be too bothered at relieving Mariupol. As well as draining Russian forces in taking the city and / or preventing redeployment, it would also (1) largely "solve" the issue of the Azov units, which are mainly based there and (2) help Ukraine when it comes to Western public opinion. Given Ukrainian positions, the Ukrainian units in the city and / or the reported low morale of the Russian forces, it would not be impossible to relieve it.
Namely the header that "Many conservatives don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. But they believe democracy itself has betrayed America, by allowing the ‘wrong’ people to take charge"
Surely that was the case with the Democrats after the 2016 election?
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
One of the interesting things about moving to New York is trying to get my head around housing costs.
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
I imagine the NJ zipcode has a big impact on that. Also, direct comparisons on house sizes aren't really fair, as US homes in the suburbs are just bigger.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
That house is pokey as hell, glazed with UVC, and you can barely swing a cat in the back garden.
It kind of proves my point.
You can get this - looks around 3000 sq ft - for literally less than the one you showed me.
The two houses posted illustrate @Gardenwalker point to a comical degree. The lot size of the US house is over 9000 sq feet ! The obsession in the UK with numbers of bedrooms rather than floor area is probably to blame. Though property tax on the US house is almost 20k a year
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
This excerpt jumped out at me:
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
This excerpt jumped out at me:
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
Russian pension costs are crippling?
Either that or, given sanctions and rouble depreciation, the AK47 now costs more than the conscript…
OMG! I've just "liked" three of @MaxPB 's posts. Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
I’m a centre lefty but I agree with Max on this stuff.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The worst part is that it feels as though the old people are positively gleeful at the impoverishment of younger generations, the baby boomer generation is truly the most selfish to exist. They are all about themselves and how they can monopolise as much wealth as possible and keep it locked away while getting young generations to pay for nurses to wipe their arses for years because they're too scared to die.
The just don’t get it. And they don’t care. That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
I think they do get it. I think they realise young people are getting screwed with higher uni fees, unaffordable housing, unaffordable living costs outside of housing. They still don't care. I get a sense they want to encourage more screwing of young people because we're all lazy wasters who have never done a hard day's work in our lives etc... while they were all slaving away earning no money but also magically able to buy houses in their 20s.
90% of over 60s did not go to university. North of Watford housing is still pretty affordable, south of Watford those in their 40s and 50s will inherit more than any generation before.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Housing everywhere is not really affordable for young people any more. In London I pay half my post-tax salary to rent a small room in a flat with two other people. If I moved back home three hours from London... I'd still be paying half my post-tax salary on rent, because I'd get paid much less (and then I'd get completely fucked on buying, insuring, fueling and maintaining a car because there's no reliable public transport).
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
Namely the header that "Many conservatives don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. But they believe democracy itself has betrayed America, by allowing the ‘wrong’ people to take charge"
Surely that was the case with the Democrats after the 2016 election?
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
This excerpt jumped out at me:
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
Nowt wrong with the MN. There is a lot of stopping power in that 7.62x53 round. It's still in production in Finland and there must be thousands still in use all over the world. Possibly used as a designated marksman weapon as the British forces do with the 7.62 L129.
The most interesting thing is that although @MaxPB are I are fairly different politically we both agree the Tories are not for the young. This gives you an insight into why this age group are not voting Tory.
It doesn’t matter but it is interesting. If we all voted we would do damage.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports
Desperate.
The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.
The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.
Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.
I think 10% of Ukranian armed Forces are women, and are employed in all roles. 90% male still, but probably more females than most armies.
No doubt, though wasn't there a story about Ukraine barring men of fighting age from leaving the country? Not seen much follow up if that was an actual thing, as there seem to be plenty of male refugees.
Yes, men aged 16-60 were not allowed to leave Ukraine after the date of the invasion, they are being stopped at the border. Women, children and elderly are being allowed to leave.
The most interesting thing is that although @MaxPB are I are fairly different politically we both agree the Tories are not for the young. This gives you an insight into why this age group are not voting Tory.
It doesn’t matter but it is interesting. If we all voted we would do damage.
You assume that those that don't vote share your views.
The EU referendum should have taught you not to think like that.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports
Desperate.
The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.
The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.
Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.
I think 10% of Ukranian armed Forces are women, and are employed in all roles. 90% male still, but probably more females than most armies.
No doubt, though wasn't there a story about Ukraine barring men of fighting age from leaving the country? Not seen much follow up if that was an actual thing, as there seem to be plenty of male refugees.
Yes, men aged 16-60 were not allowed to leave Ukraine after the date of the invasion, they are being stopped at the border. Women, children and elderly are being allowed to leave.
from what I've heard elsewhere, it was a little more complex than that: if a family was going over, men of fighting age would generally be allowed to leave so they can get their families safe, before heading back. Although many were getting their families to the border then turning around to head back.
TBF, training that number of people immediately has its own difficulties. You might be best training 50,000 young men well over a month rather than 200,000 poorly in two weeks.
If I were doing it (and IANAE, etc, etc), I would cycle out troops from the frontlines who have been in battle after a period and set them on training, before cycling them back out again. An individual cannot keep fighting forever; they need breaks - and why not use some of them for training?
Namely the header that "Many conservatives don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. But they believe democracy itself has betrayed America, by allowing the ‘wrong’ people to take charge"
Surely that was the case with the Democrats after the 2016 election?
Says the person who froths at the mouth when we mention Scotland 😅
Namely the header that "Many conservatives don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. But they believe democracy itself has betrayed America, by allowing the ‘wrong’ people to take charge"
Surely that was the case with the Democrats after the 2016 election?
Says the person who froths at the mouth when we mention Scotland 😅
Shhh.... you just mentioned it.... But I think we might have got away with it...
Namely the header that "Many conservatives don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. But they believe democracy itself has betrayed America, by allowing the ‘wrong’ people to take charge"
Surely that was the case with the Democrats after the 2016 election?
Says the person who froths at the mouth when we mention Scotland 😅
When I was at University all the boys played that game Diplomacy. You know, the one where you moved tanks and ships and men and made alliances in order to conquer Europe.
I feel that pb.com has become a bit like that of late. 75% of posts are boys with fake toys talking military strategies.
I know there's a real war going on, and it's devastating, but the armchair generals on here ain't gonna solve it.
Jeremy Hunt @Jeremy_Hunt Ministerial turnover may have been a factor. So might initial reluctance to pay the debt because people worried it would look like a ransom. So undoubtedly were the complications over how to pay a country that is sanctioned.
If it looks like a ransom, that's because it was a ransom.
Now, perhaps more should have been done to get round the sanctions to pay that debt earlier, I'm not an expert, but she was a hostage. Simple as that.
Paying ransoms has a cost. It encourages other actors to take hostages.
Jeremy Hunt @Jeremy_Hunt If democracies can show such impressive unity on Russian sanctions, surely we can do the same to stamp out the 19th century practice of hostage taking?
When I was at University all the boys played that game Diplomacy. You know, the one where you moved tanks and ships and men and made alliances in order to conquer Europe.
I feel that pb.com has become a bit like that of late. 75% of posts are boys with fake toys talking military strategies.
I know there's a real war going on, and it's devastating, but the armchair generals on here ain't gonna solve it.
You have consistently called for an NFZ on here. Do you count yourself amongst the 'armchair generals' ? Your comment is little more than a poor effort at trolling. D-
BTW, at times there has apparently been an active Diplomacy group on here.
When I was at University all the boys played that game Diplomacy. You know, the one where you moved tanks and ships and men and made alliances in order to conquer Europe.
I feel that pb.com has become a bit like that of late. 75% of posts are boys with fake toys talking military strategies.
I know there's a real war going on, and it's devastating, but the armchair generals on here ain't gonna solve it.
The same can be said about everything that has been discussed on here over the time I've been visiting the site. Covid being the prime example.
@Yokes , @Dura_Ace and @Cicero are the posters to listen to most closely on this. But that shouldn't stop others discussing it.
As an example, I got quite a lot out of the conversation about benefits/young/old/tax last night, despite it pretty much being the day job for me. It was great to get some input from more experienced analysts, and people with completely different backgrounds/experiences. Shame @Gallowgate wasn't online to contribute too.
Jeremy Hunt @Jeremy_Hunt Ministerial turnover may have been a factor. So might initial reluctance to pay the debt because people worried it would look like a ransom. So undoubtedly were the complications over how to pay a country that is sanctioned.
If it looks like a ransom, that's because it was a ransom.
Now, perhaps more should have been done to get round the sanctions to pay that debt earlier, I'm not an expert, but she was a hostage. Simple as that.
Paying ransoms has a cost. It encourages other actors to take hostages.
Jeremy Hunt @Jeremy_Hunt If democracies can show such impressive unity on Russian sanctions, surely we can do the same to stamp out the 19th century practice of hostage taking?
"Boris Johnson "desperate" to go to Ukraine - senior Conservative
The Tory chairman, Oliver Dowden, has claimed British prime minister Boris Johnson is “desperate to go to Ukraine” and has a “real emotional connection” with the Ukrainian people."
Boris being Boris, I suppose. There is no situation so tragic that the man will not make it about him and his self-promotion.
In fairness it is Churchillian - Churchill wanted to be on the beaches at D-Day and it took a direct order from the King to stop him. Both are/were terrible ideas....
The NI rise is absolutely crackers, and was always crackers. It will go down like the proverbial and will be reversed/mitigated out of existence in short order.
The problem is that the Tory trick will be to lower income tax at which point it is simply a transfer of wealth from working age people (still paying more NI) to retired people (get an income tax cut).
Are you ever happy, the other day you were going on about all these high paid jobs for th eyoung with 10K signing on bonuses, you are constantly whining about older people having the audacity to have a house or a few bob in the bank. Why not go out and get a job that pays you more rather than wanting to rob your granny.
"The only thing that I would say that's different since the last time we had a chance to talk is that we have seen some increased naval activity in the northern Black Sea."
"The Russians have a little bit more than a dozen warships, different stripes and sizes -- amphibious ships, surface combatants, mine sweeper and some patrol boats that they've got up in the northern Black Sea"
"It is not clear that this is an imminent pre-staging sign of an amphibious assault on Odesa, so it would be, at this point, we would assess that it would be wrong to conclude that this is somehow an indication that Odesa is under an imminent threat of an amphibious assault"
"On the hypersonic claim that the Russians made, we're not able to refute it, but we can't independently confirm it, either. It's not entirely clear. So what we would assess is it's certainly possible. But it's a bit of a head-scratcher, to be honest with you"
"it's not exactly clear why, if it's true, why would you need a hypersonic missile fired from not that far away to hit a building? It could be that they're running low on precision-guided munitions and feel like they need to tap into that resource."
"It could be that they're trying to send a message to the west, but also to Ukraine, and trying to gain some leverage at the negotiating table. But it's a -- from a military perspective, if it was a hypersonic missile there's not a whole lot of practicality about it."
Responding to a question on leadership- "The other thing is, Jack -- and people forget this... they [Russia] don't organize their military the way we do. They don't have an equivalent to a noncommissioned officers corps, for instance"
"And their [Russia] junior officers don't have the same wherewithal, flexibility... they don't invest in their junior officers the kind of initiative that we do."
"You know that we [the US] put a lot into an E-4 and an E-5 and an E-6 to -- to make decisions literally in the moment on the battlefield. They don't have that kind of a tradition. They don't have that structure."
"We believe that they [Russia] are having command-and-control problems just in terms of communications... they just weren't fully prepared for operations of this intensity for this long on so many different multiple lines of attack"
"We do see them having some command-and-control difficulties, both in terms of a military operational concept issue, being able to integrate air to ground, to make decisions in real-time effectively, but also in terms of their ability to communicate over established links."
"We're seeing them [Russia] use a lot more unclassified communications because their classified communications capability is -- is being -- is -- well, for one reason or another, is not as strong as it should be."
I love that “mouth running ahead of brain” moment at the end
Comments
The £20 uplift was good for much poorer people. But both are dwarfed by particularly harsh policies like the two child limit.
Something drastic to the private rental market.
Cut National Insurance......
But these are Labour/SNP voters. So.
Now, can you concoct some sort of legislation that might restrict access to operating a ferry service unless they meet some standard. OK, fine, I will give you that in theory yes. But, I am sure subject to a load of legal challenges about cargo vs ferry etc.
And literally nobody in a position of influence is suggesting that it is a workable / practical solution. Which suggests in reality it is a non-starter / not practical, because it will have all these other knock-on effects relating to the general maritime industry.
I mean in theory, Jezza as PM, could do his policy of seizing private property and nationalising. But that ain't going to happen either.
It's just the marginal utility of disposable income is much higher for people on lower incomes.
Does this make me a rabid Johnsonian Conservative or has Max been reading Das Kapital again?
Same goes for income tax thresholds; freezing them looks like a painful mistake but hard to fix in the next fortnight, even if Rishi didn't need the money, which he does.
The reason is, an economy actually needs the opportunity to produce something for there to be wealth to be distributed.
The government wants to tax working people into the dust to please millions of doddering greedies.
The thing is now the genie is out the bottle, if it isn't rolled back, only a matter of time before the new super special NI extra tax gets bumped up a bit more / changed to increase take.
And they don’t care.
That’s why I get so angry that I call them doddering greedies etc.
Occasionally I “joke” about compulsory euthanasia.
Would be interesting to model everything from 2010, and 1997-2010, and see what the differences are.
If it is just the issues of oldies being hit by this, it can't be beyond the wit of man to work out adjustments to compensate against the worst parts of the fact NI / IC has been combined (and perhaps taking a bit more of the very rich pensioners).
And then moaned about foreigners coming in to do the work that needed doing...
Macron (EC-RE): 27.5% (-3.5)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 20% (+2)
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 15% (+1)
Zemmour (REC-NI): 10% (-0.5)
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 10% (-1.5)
…
+/- vs. 14-15 March 2022
Fieldwork: 19-21 March 2022
Sample size: ~1,500
Le Pen and Melenchon consolidating. 15% is a high for Melenchon. Macron slipping.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/17/emmanuel-macron-vows-to-step-up-welfare-reforms-if-re-elected
Apart from anything else, punitive housing and education costs make it almost impossible for a smart working class kid to ascend into the middle classes. It’s a recipe for class stagnation and a colossal waste of human capital.
That said, the man is either incredibly brave or a f****** moron.
Energy bills and council tax apply to the old as much as the young
Lab 35% Con 33% LD 16%.
Tories have shored up although Labour hasn't really declined. I agree with OGH's conclusions. I can see how the Tories might surprise on the upside in Scotland, Midlands and even parts of London even if they get hammered in Northern Met districts and do relatively badly in Wales.
I can imagine some upside in the Midlands, though.
Remember in 2019 the Tories voteshare fall by 1.2% in London compared to 2017 even if Boris got a big swing towards him across the UK and UK wide the Tory vote rose by 1.2% since 2017. Starmer goes down better in posh Remain areas of London than Corbyn did, while Boris goes down generally worse than May there
99% certain it'll be 'bloody powers that be kyboshed it, Christ, I only wish I could be there' while a dissolving Nadine looks on and helpful muppets live tweet the moment.
But one thing i noticed form todays report. the 2 breakaway pro Russia 'states in the Dombas have now increased the upper age for conscription from 55 to 65. yes they are now looking at men in there 60s to fill there ranks.
There shortage in manpower must be massive for that to seem sensible!
But then again I did buy a sandwich from Pret last month so it's probably my fault.
Russia has a large armed force on paper 950,000 person strong, but how much is useable? he cant really send the crow from a submarine, or personnel form air force, similar the nuclear troops. so its army and naval infantry. He has already stated that there will be no more Russian conscripts in Ukraine, I don't think he would mind braking that promise, but its different sending in somebody in month 11 and month 1 of there 12 month conception period. and anyway there need Officers and NCOs to go with them. Of the regular solders, some may have existed on paper only other will be ill at any one point in time. of the usable men he will need to keep some around the boarder and protecting over vital points.
He still has 40,000 'elite' by (Russian standards) men near Moscow, but does he dare send them? if he does and then there is the risk that he cant put down a big protest/revelation in Moscow.
Most of the troops prepositioned were of a fairly high quality, while replacement troops and equipment will be somewhat worse. Russia does seem willing to throw bodies at the problem though.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506039319764553742?s=20&t=bX78BSUzIvg4W1mxADerQg
Manhattan is of course grossly expensive and more than comparable with London Zones 1 & 2.
But you don’t need to go out soooo much before prices drop away rapidly. For example, in Montclair, New Jersey - a prosperous and vaguely arty commuter town, 20 miles outside Manhattan - you can get a very nice 2000 or 3000 sq ft house for circa £500k.
Try doing that in Tunbridge Wells.
Americans earn more, are taxed less, and have lower housing (and energy) costs.
One example is that National Insurance is charged on pension contributions, but then not charged on pension income. So if you merge NI and IT then you will end up taxing income from pensions twice.
We also have this weird situation in which the branding of National Insurance means that it's actually quite a popular tax to increase, certainly more popular than Income Tax, even though it is in many respects a less fair tax to increase, what with National Insurance not being charged on capital gains, or dividend income, so from a simple political point of view a Chancellor would have to be mad to effectively abolish National Insurance and increase Income Tax by 10% or so.
Instead, the political imperative is to drive in the other direction, and the new "NHS & Social Care Levy" will only accelerate the process, as will the next iteration, the "Precept for Angelic Nurses".
I can't think of any way to solve this except by replacing Income Tax, with a new "Income-Related NHS Contribution" (that is otherwise identical).
"Local social media imagery depicted new conscripts equipped with the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifle—which has not been produced since 1973 and was first produced in 1891."
I can't believe that the Russians would have run out of Kalashnikovs, so what do we make of this? Seems to be a particularly cruel and nihilistic move.
Also, it depends which way you go from London. But, say Welwyn Garden City, 25 miles from central London. Here is quick random search, you can get a decent house for £500k.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/120881603#/?channel=RES_BUY
I imagine if you go for say Sussex rather than Surrey, is a bit like NJ vs NY state.
Upstate NY is where is most surprising. Cold Spring type way is really very very nice and properties aren't crazy money and it is still easy to get into the city.
As for branding, I wish government would get away from worrying about that and thinking about what is the best policies.
A solid government needs to seize the mantle and not just react to events.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1506078026567663620
Pt 1:
"The only thing that I would say that's different since the last time we had a chance to talk is that we have seen some increased naval activity in the northern Black Sea."
"The Russians have a little bit more than a dozen warships, different stripes and sizes -- amphibious ships, surface combatants, mine sweeper and some patrol boats that they've got up in the northern Black Sea"
"It is not clear that this is an imminent pre-staging sign of an amphibious assault on Odesa, so it would be, at this point, we would assess that it would be wrong to conclude that this is somehow an indication that Odesa is under an imminent threat of an amphibious assault"
"On the hypersonic claim that the Russians made, we're not able to refute it, but we can't independently confirm it, either. It's not entirely clear. So what we would assess is it's certainly possible. But it's a bit of a head-scratcher, to be honest with you"
"it's not exactly clear why, if it's true, why would you need a hypersonic missile fired from not that far away to hit a building? It could be that they're running low on precision-guided munitions and feel like they need to tap into that resource."
"It could be that they're trying to send a message to the west, but also to Ukraine, and trying to gain some leverage at the negotiating table. But it's a -- from a military perspective, if it was a hypersonic missile there's not a whole lot of practicality about it."
Responding to a question on leadership- "The other thing is, Jack -- and people forget this... they [Russia] don't organize their military the way we do. They don't have an equivalent to a noncommissioned officers corps, for instance"
"And their [Russia] junior officers don't have the same wherewithal, flexibility... they don't invest in their junior officers the kind of initiative that we do."
"You know that we [the US] put a lot into an E-4 and an E-5 and an E-6 to -- to make decisions literally in the moment on the battlefield. They don't have that kind of a tradition. They don't have that structure."
"We believe that they [Russia] are having command-and-control problems just in terms of communications... they just weren't fully prepared for operations of this intensity for this long on so many different multiple lines of attack"
"We do see them having some command-and-control difficulties, both in terms of a military operational concept issue, being able to integrate air to ground, to make decisions in real-time effectively, but also in terms of their ability to communicate over established links."
"We're seeing them [Russia] use a lot more unclassified communications because their classified communications capability is -- is being -- is -- well, for one reason or another, is not as strong as it should be."
In response to a change in strategy- "What we assess is that they [Russia] are looking for a chance to break out, they are looking for a chance to gain some momentum, not even re-gain momentum, because they never really had it, and that's what's so frustrating for them."
"I mean, when you look at the map, you can count literally on one hand the number of population centers that we assess are in Russian control right now."
"So what -- so what have they gained in -- in now 26 days? They got Melitopol', they got Berdyans'k and they got Kherson. That's it. They don't have Kyiv, they don't have Kharkiv, they don't have Mariupol, although... I mean, there's a lot of fighting going on there."
"They [Russia] haven't achieved anything, in terms of what we assess to be their objectives, which is population centers so that they could occupy and take over Ukraine."
"With these increased long range fires, missile strikes, artillery bombardments, in trying to encircle cities so that you can lob more long range fires into those cities, is a reflection of what some people believe is a desperate attempt by them [Russia] to gain some momentum,"
"And rather than demoralizing the Ukrainians, I think you've all seen that this kind of violence has only motivated them more, which means that they're resisting more, which means the Russians continue to get frustrated and flummoxed and kind of stuck where they are."
"I mean, my goodness, here we are, day 26, they're still -- we still hold them a good 15 kilometers northwest of Kyiv, which is where they were last week. We still hold them about 30 kilometers from the east of Kyiv, which is where they were last week when we talked before."
"Again, not that we're pushing back on this idea of a war of attrition but we're not exactly using that phrase here. What we're seeing is a near desperate attempt by the Russians to gain some momentum and try to turn the course of this in their favor."
"And -- and doing so could simply be -- again, could -- I want to emphasize the word "could" -- could simply be an attempt to improve their position at the negotiating table, to get some kind of leverage, because right now, it doesn't appear like they have a lot of leverage"
The collective West needs to give Putin no such route. He either creates it through military gains or not at all. Whilst the outcome of the military conflict is in the balance, the fact its even in the balance should be an indication that the West should redouble its efforts, not open a door.
Russia's military losses are bad. If the larger end of the claims are anywhere near reality, they are very bad. The Russian military cannot sustain those losses without having to pull fresh formations in, but to do that they may have to call up more reservists rather than call on standing military units because there is only so much left of those. Calling up substantive reservists has its own problems.
On the battlefield there are indications the Ukrainians have cut off some advance Russian elements on the left flank of Kyiv via an attack from the west. For the first time there is the possibility of a choke being established. If they pull it off it will represent the first sizeable defeat for Russian forces where they are ceding land.
The South East by the Black Sea and Sea of Azov is another major Russian target and the Ukrainians currently don't seem yet able to halt or reverse the gains. Russia is putting a lot of effort in here and has the better cards to play. Recognition of occupied areas here as Russian territory is considered to be one of the things Putin will look for to claim success in any peace deal. Somewhere along that Azov coast the Ukrainians need to push the Russians out. If they somehow can, Putin loses another bargaining chip and he hasn't got too many right now, hence why he will continue to pursue the conflict.
I mentioned a lot of days back that, despite the talk, the idea of direct Western intervention of some kind isn't as off the table as it looks and that some capitals had already recognised this. A humanitarian situation too severe to ignore is a possibility as is a Russian escalation that is seen as outside the Ukraine borders.
It shows the trouble Putin is in: he doesn't have the troops to bring Ukraine to heel without moving them from other parts of his Empire. But if he does that, he risks rebellions or other demonstrations that he will be unable to suppress.
And so he struggles in Ukraine, and his strength is sapped, and the world risks a nuclear or chemical attack in a European country, because Putin sees that as the only way to hold on to power.
These comms issues are put forward one of the reasons why a such a number of senior officers have been killed. they have been forced to go to the front lines to get a picture of what is going on and direct their troops because the comms have been a mess.
It kind of proves my point.
You can get this - looks around 3000 sq ft - for literally less than the one you showed me.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/557-Upper-Mountain-Ave-Montclair-NJ-07043/38681341_zpid/
PS Certainly could not use Welwyn Garden City as a comp for Montclair.
Re redeployment, there are already signs though that Russia has redeployed troops from peacekeeping areas, such as South Ossetia and Armenia. So, I think he is getting desperate and taking risks, although I would not expect Georgia to take advantage of the situation (rightly, because the geography doesn't help it).
Re the DNR / LNR, calling up those to the age of 65 and giving them ancient rifles, it's likely these would be used to keep order behind the lines but, again, it is a signal that Russia is raiding the stores to supply troops. There was an interesting pic of an old T-72A that was captured near Kyiv. In the "new" Russian army, that tank should have been nowhere near the front.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/21/republicans-biden-trump-election-democracy
Namely the header that "Many conservatives don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. But they believe democracy itself has betrayed America, by allowing the ‘wrong’ people to take charge"
Surely that was the case with the Democrats after the 2016 election?
The lot size of the US house is over 9000 sq feet !
The obsession in the UK with numbers of bedrooms rather than floor area is probably to blame. Though property tax on the US house is almost 20k a year
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/03/21/ukraine-military-scrapyard-pleitgen-dnt-ebof-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/russia-ukraine-military-conflict/
I hope it isn't quite as 'scrapyard' as CNN makes out: a tank must be pretty much ineffective as a weapon without its optics and electronics.
It doesn’t matter but it is interesting. If we all voted we would do damage.
The EU referendum should have taught you not to think like that.
TBF, training that number of people immediately has its own difficulties. You might be best training 50,000 young men well over a month rather than 200,000 poorly in two weeks.
If I were doing it (and IANAE, etc, etc), I would cycle out troops from the frontlines who have been in battle after a period and set them on training, before cycling them back out again. An individual cannot keep fighting forever; they need breaks - and why not use some of them for training?
90% is too high for most bets and if you can make a profit from that then good on you.
Labour will still 'almost certainly' win the popular share on May 5th. It's just a question of how you quantify that phrase.
Are you part of a team?
I feel that pb.com has become a bit like that of late. 75% of posts are boys with fake toys talking military strategies.
I know there's a real war going on, and it's devastating, but the armchair generals on here ain't gonna solve it.
Jeremy Hunt
@Jeremy_Hunt
Ministerial turnover may have been a factor. So might initial reluctance to pay the debt because people worried it would look like a ransom. So undoubtedly were the complications over how to pay a country that is sanctioned.
If it looks like a ransom, that's because it was a ransom.
Now, perhaps more should have been done to get round the sanctions to pay that debt earlier, I'm not an expert, but she was a hostage. Simple as that.
Paying ransoms has a cost. It encourages other actors to take hostages.
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1506161554999418883
Jeremy Hunt
@Jeremy_Hunt
If democracies can show such impressive unity on Russian sanctions, surely we can do the same to stamp out the 19th century practice of hostage taking?
Not paying ransoms helps...
BTW, at times there has apparently been an active Diplomacy group on here.
@Yokes , @Dura_Ace and @Cicero are the posters to listen to most closely on this. But that shouldn't stop others discussing it.
As an example, I got quite a lot out of the conversation about benefits/young/old/tax last night, despite it pretty much being the day job for me. It was great to get some input from more experienced analysts, and people with completely different backgrounds/experiences. Shame @Gallowgate wasn't online to contribute too.
Why not go out and get a job that pays you more rather than wanting to rob your granny.