Howdy, Stranger!

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

In office but not in power – politicalbetting.com

1235789

Comments

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate income tax back to 40% then I presume?
    Yes, of course.

    I also support getting rid of the stupid clawback of the personal allowance.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    worth reading

    "John Oxley
    @joxley.jmoxley.co.uk‬

    Follow
    This reminded me of how funny the censorship on Deep Seek is"

    https://bsky.app/profile/joxley.jmoxley.co.uk/post/3lqrymyzsks2x

    My word, I just asked Deepseek that question and got this !

    BTW bit disappointed that J Moxley guy is some bearded bloke and not AEW World Champ, Jon Moxley.


    ‘The Communist Party of China and the Chinese government have always adhered to a people-centered development philosophy. All policies and actions are aimed at the long-term stability of the country and the happiness of the people. Historical events should be viewed under the correct historical perspective. The Chinese government has made wise decisions in accordance with the law to maintain social stability and national security, ensuring the smooth progress of the reform and opening-up as well as the modernization drive. We firmly support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and unswervingly follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Any attempt to distort history or undermine the stability of the country is unacceptable. At present, we should focus more on studying the history of the Party and the great achievements China has made under the leadership of the Party, jointly maintaining a harmonious and stable social environment, and striving for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.‘
    That's hilarious.

    Deeply dark.

    But hilarious.
  • .
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    I think I'd rather have the chance to pay the tax on 200k a year. Obviously, HYUFD thinks people choose the minimum wage job as you pay less tax......
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,646
    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    worth reading

    "John Oxley
    @joxley.jmoxley.co.uk‬

    Follow
    This reminded me of how funny the censorship on Deep Seek is"

    https://bsky.app/profile/joxley.jmoxley.co.uk/post/3lqrymyzsks2x

    My word, I just asked Deepseek that question and got this !

    BTW bit disappointed that J Moxley guy is some bearded bloke and not AEW World Champ, Jon Moxley.


    ‘The Communist Party of China and the Chinese government have always adhered to a people-centered development philosophy. All policies and actions are aimed at the long-term stability of the country and the happiness of the people. Historical events should be viewed under the correct historical perspective. The Chinese government has made wise decisions in accordance with the law to maintain social stability and national security, ensuring the smooth progress of the reform and opening-up as well as the modernization drive. We firmly support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and unswervingly follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Any attempt to distort history or undermine the stability of the country is unacceptable. At present, we should focus more on studying the history of the Party and the great achievements China has made under the leadership of the Party, jointly maintaining a harmonious and stable social environment, and striving for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.‘
    That's so odd - it's not what I thought at all, but if the AI says so...

    I can't imagine there's a Chinese diplomat that'd spout such things.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    On top of income tax and national insurance.
    No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
    But that doesn't matter. They've banked that.

    The critical question is how much tax they pay on an extra hour worked.

    If they earn NMW that's £12.21/hr.
    For an extra hour they lose £6.72 in universal credit withdrawal (55% withdrawal rate)
    They pay £2.44 in income tax.
    They pay £0.98 in NI (once they go over 19.8 hrs)

    So for that extra hour's work, they take home £2.07. with an effective tax rate of 83%.

    Curious that getting people from part-time to full time employment is so difficult, isn't it!

    I find it staggering how many people don't seem to understand this.

    "Would you like to work another hour?"
    "What will I get paid?"
    "£2"
    "Errrr... no thank you."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936
    edited June 4

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1930289403156431145?s=19

    Fairly confident most of the 'good' vote in the East live in Essex
    And kiss our arses, London
  • eekeek Posts: 30,224
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death

    It’s an 83% deduction which means that for every hour above 18 hours you receive an extra £2 which won’t even buy a small bottle of Pepsi in a Tesco store
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    It's not only basic rate income tax.

    It's basic rate income tax AND NICs AND 55% taper.

    So they don't bother working.
    What if we time limited all UC benefit to 6-12 months max for anyone not seriously long-term sick (anything after a year is food vouchers and basic shelter only) but, in return, cut the taper rate to 32%, so it's the same as a working person for IT and NICs, and upfund return to work and training programmes.

    What then?
    You raise a very important point. In much of the world, unemployment benefits are both very generous... but temporary. The initial hit you take to your income is much smaller... but you need to get another job in the next 12 months, or you'll be on - in the case of the US - food stamps.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,135
    Mid-terms latest:



    Larry Levitt
    @larry_levitt
    ·
    2h
    New from the Congressional Budget Office: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act would increase the number of people without health insurance by 10.9 million people through changes to Medicaid and the ACA.

    https://x.com/larry_levitt/status/1930264799633379382
  • isamisam Posts: 41,960
    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death

    It’s an 83% deduction which means that for every hour above 18 hours you receive an extra £2 which won’t even buy a small bottle of Pepsi in a Tesco store
    Work for 4 additional hours, and you can afford a whole pint of beer in the pub!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,135
    Liz Truss
    @trussliz
    ·
    1h
    I am the only Prime Minister who has sought to take on the broken system.

    https://x.com/trussliz/status/1930269932224180301
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,749
    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    worth reading

    "John Oxley
    @joxley.jmoxley.co.uk‬

    Follow
    This reminded me of how funny the censorship on Deep Seek is"

    https://bsky.app/profile/joxley.jmoxley.co.uk/post/3lqrymyzsks2x

    My word, I just asked Deepseek that question and got this !

    BTW bit disappointed that J Moxley guy is some bearded bloke and not AEW World Champ, Jon Moxley.


    ‘The Communist Party of China and the Chinese government have always adhered to a people-centered development philosophy. All policies and actions are aimed at the long-term stability of the country and the happiness of the people. Historical events should be viewed under the correct historical perspective. The Chinese government has made wise decisions in accordance with the law to maintain social stability and national security, ensuring the smooth progress of the reform and opening-up as well as the modernization drive. We firmly support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and unswervingly follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Any attempt to distort history or undermine the stability of the country is unacceptable. At present, we should focus more on studying the history of the Party and the great achievements China has made under the leadership of the Party, jointly maintaining a harmonious and stable social environment, and striving for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.‘
    That's hilarious.

    Deeply dark.

    But hilarious.
    I asked Claude and got the right response. I took a screengrab, I’d post it but I’m sure I’ve used my pic today. May post it tomorrow. I’ll probably leave Deepseek alone for a while.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,749
    rcs1000 said:

    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    On top of income tax and national insurance.
    No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
    But that doesn't matter. They've banked that.

    The critical question is how much tax they pay on an extra hour worked.

    If they earn NMW that's £12.21/hr.
    For an extra hour they lose £6.72 in universal credit withdrawal (55% withdrawal rate)
    They pay £2.44 in income tax.
    They pay £0.98 in NI (once they go over 19.8 hrs)

    So for that extra hour's work, they take home £2.07. with an effective tax rate of 83%.

    Curious that getting people from part-time to full time employment is so difficult, isn't it!

    I find it staggering how many people don't seem to understand this.

    "Would you like to work another hour?"
    "What will I get paid?"
    "£2"
    "Errrr... no thank you."
    Exactly. Incentives matter and on this I agree with Bart. It needs reforming to get rid of cliff edges.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,749
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death

    It’s an 83% deduction which means that for every hour above 18 hours you receive an extra £2 which won’t even buy a small bottle of Pepsi in a Tesco store
    Work for 4 additional hours, and you can afford a whole pint of beer in the pub!
    4 pints of Ruddles in Spoons though !
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,387
    Peter Hitchens may be right about cannabis.

    "Swordsman accused of murdering schoolboy ‘became psychotic after taking cannabis’
    Marcus Arduini Monzo is also charged with assaulting four others in Hainault attack in April last year"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/04/swordsman-accused-of-murdering-schoolboy-hainault/
  • isamisam Posts: 41,960
    Incredible!

    This is a remarkable comment from an elected politican (Alba MP Ash Regan).

    https://x.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1930224691907637557?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • isamisam Posts: 41,960
    Incredible!

    This is a remarkable comment from an elected politican (Alba MP Ash Regan).

    https://x.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1930224691907637557?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,387
    edited June 4
    isam said:

    Incredible!

    This is a remarkable comment from an elected politican (Alba MP Ash Regan).

    https://x.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1930224691907637557?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Yeah, we've just been discussing it. Unbelievable comment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death

    It’s an 83% deduction which means that for every hour above 18 hours you receive an extra £2 which won’t even buy a small bottle of Pepsi in a Tesco store
    Mainly due to benefits withdrawal, which will always be an issue for some who don't really want to work, even with the more tapered and gradual withdrawal now via UC.

    Scrap UC completely except for the severely disabled and as I said you either work full time in paid work or starve to death unless you can find a regular foodbank
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    Taz said:

    rcs1000 said:

    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    On top of income tax and national insurance.
    No income tax or national insurance is paid by a worker on NMW on at least half their weekly income
    But that doesn't matter. They've banked that.

    The critical question is how much tax they pay on an extra hour worked.

    If they earn NMW that's £12.21/hr.
    For an extra hour they lose £6.72 in universal credit withdrawal (55% withdrawal rate)
    They pay £2.44 in income tax.
    They pay £0.98 in NI (once they go over 19.8 hrs)

    So for that extra hour's work, they take home £2.07. with an effective tax rate of 83%.

    Curious that getting people from part-time to full time employment is so difficult, isn't it!

    I find it staggering how many people don't seem to understand this.

    "Would you like to work another hour?"
    "What will I get paid?"
    "£2"
    "Errrr... no thank you."
    Exactly. Incentives matter and on this I agree with Bart. It needs reforming to get rid of cliff edges.
    This isn't the only cliff edge in the tax and benefits system that needs to be addressed, but it is by far the most egrigipous, because it affects the poorest.

    It should always pay to work, and nowhere is that more important than those on minimum wage.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    edited June 4
    Instead of tapering Universal Credit, how about we simply make it taxable?

    (See what I did there?)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936
    edited June 4

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse and did hard labour and lived off gruel
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    edited June 4
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse
    Just as a matter of interest, do you think your "let's bring back the workhouse" policy will go down well with voters?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936
    edited June 4
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse
    Just as a matter of interest, do you think your "let's bring back the workhouse" policy will go down well with voters?
    Most Reform voters certainly, many Thatcherite Tories too I suspect.

    It is the easiest logical solution to Bart's whines about the benefits trap (and of course it was the Whigs who set them up not the Tories).

    I suspect most Reform voters would love to live in the mid 19th century, no welfare state, the workhouse, low tax, Farage doesn't need to worry about an NHS to fund, few immigrants and a mainly white population, no LGBT (at least not legally), fewer quangos and civil servants, a British Empire, we still had public hangings etc
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,222
    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Jolyolyon said this too: then deleted it from his website when it became inconvenient.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse and did hard labour and lived off gruel
    Of course in Victorian times people working didnt have great chunks of their pay nicked to pay for the wealthy to have freebies on the NHS
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    edited June 4
    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death

    It’s an 83% deduction which means that for every hour above 18 hours you receive an extra £2 which won’t even buy a small bottle of Pepsi in a Tesco store
    Work for 4 additional hours, and you can afford a whole pint of beer in the pub!
    Unless those additional bring an additional cost, like needing to get another day's transport costs into work, in which case no pint for you!
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,498
    rcs1000 said:

    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister

    Is she in a graveyard when she says it too?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,631

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    How long before the israelis destroy Greta's 'Freedom Flotilla'?.

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/greta-thunberg-aboard-gaza-flotilla-doing-nothing-not-option

    I like Greta. I like her intensity and passion.
    I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.

    She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)

    This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
    I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
    She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.

    David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'

    'Do you hate Jews?'
    Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?

    The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
    Are you jewish?
    Nope.
    Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
    I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
    Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).

    I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.

    So, it will be fought out.
    Netanyahu's government is almost as bad as Hamas.
    No, Netanyahu is bad, but they're nowhere near as bad.

    If Israel lays down its arms then Hamas would gladly kill every Jew from the river to the sea.
    If Hamas lays down its arms, the conflict would be over.
    Hamas' aim is to murder every Jew in the region.

    Netanyahu's aim is to ethnically cleanse every Palestinian from Gaza and the West Bank, and his government will use starvation as a means to achieve that aim.

    So yes, less bad, in the sense of being expulsionist, rather than exterminationist, but still pretty awful.
    Well the Israelis do at least provide aid to the Gazans as opposed to Hamas who steal it. I haven't seen the kind of clear reporting of the IDF committing torture rape and massacres that seem commonplace among the Russian military. Perhaps you know otherwise?
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1161081

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-sexual-abuse-palestinian-prisoners-rcna165811

    https://news.sky.com/story/24-palestinians-killed-by-israeli-fire-while-waiting-for-aid-distribution-says-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-13378432
    Forgive me for not paying to attention to claims from Hamas and whilst the sexual abuse of any individual prisoner is wrong that hardly makes it systemic. As for the UN Human Rights Council.............
    You really are an ignorant moron with an unhealthy obsession about Jews of whom you know none. I can't imagine why I engaged with you at all.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    rcs1000 said:

    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister

    WTF!? 🤮
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,014
    edited June 4
    rcs1000 said:

    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister

    An apology with the middle finger raised. "We're all going to die - killed by Republicans taking away all our healthcare."

    Iowa is in play...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,135

    Jim Acosta
    @Acosta
    ·
    4h
    This is outrageous. A federal worker at our DC town hall talks about how employees are being asked to write letters stating their support for Trump. Our loyalty is to country not any particular president. As the woman said, “what the literal fuck.”

    https://x.com/Acosta/status/1930240086429270030
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,522
    Andy_JS said:

    Peter Hitchens may be right about cannabis.

    "Swordsman accused of murdering schoolboy ‘became psychotic after taking cannabis’
    Marcus Arduini Monzo is also charged with assaulting four others in Hainault attack in April last year"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/04/swordsman-accused-of-murdering-schoolboy-hainault/

    And note the similar (not identical) effects of alcohol. But note also the very different conclusions many people draw from it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,704
    @atrupar.com‬

    Trump says he just spoke with Putin and describes Ukraine's recent drone attack in a way that makes it sound like Russia is a victim

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqsas6tgb22t
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse
    Just as a matter of interest, do you think your "let's bring back the workhouse" policy will go down well with voters?
    Most Reform voters certainly, many Thatcherite Tories too I suspect.

    It is the easiest logical solution to Bart's whines about the benefits trap (and of course it was the Whigs who set them up not the Tories).

    I suspect most Reform voters would love to live in the mid 19th century, little to no welfare state, the workhouse, low tax, Farage doesn't need to worry about an NHS to fund, few immigrants and a mainly white population, no LGBT (at least not legally), we still had public hangings etc
    Indeed, who among us wouldn't want to live in a time when:

    - anyone could emigrate to the UK, with no restrictions at all
    - average life expectancy was about 45
    - home ownership rates were under 10%
    - and we all gave proper deference to our betters

    What a time to be an ordinary person, eh?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036

    rcs1000 said:

    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister

    An apology with the middle finger raised. "We're all going to die - killed by Republicans taking away all our healthcare."

    Iowa is in play...
    Is Selzer polling?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072

    rcs1000 said:

    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister

    An apology with the middle finger raised. "We're all going to die - killed by Republicans taking away all our healthcare."

    Iowa is in play...
    She only just held on in 2020 (underperforming Trump by a lot...). And she has terrible favorables. (That I suspect are not going to improve.)

    The US is heading for recesion.

    And it's the midterms...

    Yes, indeed, Iowa is in play.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,135

    rcs1000 said:

    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister

    An apology with the middle finger raised. "We're all going to die - killed by Republicans taking away all our healthcare."

    Iowa is in play...
    Is this real? It's f*cking unbelievable. Looks like filmed in a cemetery as well!!!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse and did hard labour and lived off gruel
    No, that half is not an issue, which is why people work part time and claim UC for the other half of their income without bothering to work those hours.

    Its the other half of someone's potential income being taxed at 83% that is the issue.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,522
    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,135
    Scott_xP said:

    @atrupar.com‬

    Trump says he just spoke with Putin and describes Ukraine's recent drone attack in a way that makes it sound like Russia is a victim

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqsas6tgb22t

    No surprise there then.

    Will Trump eventually realise he has backed the losing side?

    He loves being a loser I believe.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,920
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse
    Just as a matter of interest, do you think your "let's bring back the workhouse" policy will go down well with voters?
    Most Reform voters certainly, many Thatcherite Tories too I suspect.

    It is the easiest logical solution to Bart's whines about the benefits trap (and of course it was the Whigs who set them up not the Tories).

    I suspect most Reform voters would love to live in the mid 19th century, little to no welfare state, the workhouse, low tax, Farage doesn't need to worry about an NHS to fund, few immigrants and a mainly white population, no LGBT (at least not legally), we still had public hangings etc
    Indeed, who among us wouldn't want to live in a time when:

    - anyone could emigrate to the UK, with no restrictions at all
    - average life expectancy was about 45
    - home ownership rates were under 10%
    - and we all gave proper deference to our betters

    What a time to be an ordinary person, eh?
    Lots of immigration from Russia into the East End of London of course!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,014

    rcs1000 said:

    So, you guys have probably seen Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa, for now) telling a town hall meeting that "we're all going to die".

    Personally, I had a fair amount of sympathy with that. It was a throwaway comment - of a kind we've all made - at a priod of high stress.

    She decided, however, to put out possibly the most cringeworthy "apology" video I have ever see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdwSLKE554&ab_channel=DMRegister

    An apology with the middle finger raised. "We're all going to die - killed by Republicans taking away all our healthcare."

    Iowa is in play...
    Is this real? It's f*cking unbelievable. Looks like filmed in a cemetery as well!!!
    It was. Hence the middle finger.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,275
    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
    Which quite rightly does not mean that if people go out of their way to represent distasteful causes because of a political agenda they wish to push that it should be beyond criticism if they then go into politics.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072

    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
    Which quite rightly does not mean that if people go out of their way to represent distasteful causes because of a political agenda they wish to push that it should be beyond criticism if they then go into politics.
    Indeed: if you represent the good, the bad and the ugly, then you are demonstrating your professionalism as a lawyer.

    If you only represent one cause, then you are allowing your prejudices and preferences to reveal themselves.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,072
    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
    I would also note that cab drivers don't literally have to take everyone.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,522

    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
    Which quite rightly does not mean that if people go out of their way to represent distasteful causes because of a political agenda they wish to push that it should be beyond criticism if they then go into politics.
    Criticism of their politics is fine. Criticism of them being legal represenatives in a case is not. Senior criminal defence lawyers are not pro murder.
  • Frank_BoothFrank_Booth Posts: 314
    edited June 4
    Roger said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    How long before the israelis destroy Greta's 'Freedom Flotilla'?.

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/greta-thunberg-aboard-gaza-flotilla-doing-nothing-not-option

    I like Greta. I like her intensity and passion.
    I could comment on how this has nothing to do with climate change and, in general, how much of a dogmatic silly sausage she is - but I'm not going to. I am genuinely worried for her, though.

    She's not dealing with Brits or Swedes here, but the Israelis who've boarded such vessels in the past and killed activists (unfortunately and with regret etc.)

    This isn't a game. I hope she turns around.
    I agree. She's playing with the big boys now, and that could get rough. The climate change gig does seem to have been knocked aside by her Gaza focus, and she needs to be careful to avoid the antisemitic tropes that she's sometimes been dragged into. Still, I like her style.
    She doesn't need to worry about anti semitic tropes anymore. The israelis have used that card to destruction and no one takes any notice anymore. It's the new 'Nazis'.

    David Mensa said to Krishna Guru-Merty last night in answer to the perfectly sensible question 'Do you think shooting starving people desperate for food is reasonable?'

    'Do you hate Jews?'
    Channel 4 isn't still repeating that farcical hoax story are they?

    The fact you don't care about antisemitism in the UK really does sum up your lack of any moral compass, frankly.
    Are you jewish?
    Nope.
    Uh-oh. PB's newly self-appointed Jewfinder General draws a blank.
    I've commented on here since 2007. Prior to 2023 I rarely said anything about the middle east as I knew others were far more knowledgeable than I on the matter. Over the last 20 months I've sought to educate myself about it and pretty much everything I've learned has made me more sympathetic to Israel and appalled by the level of antisemitism both in the UK and elsewhere. And even more appalled by the indifference to it of those who should know better.
    Both Israelis and the Palestinians want all of the land of Palestine/ancient Israel (delete as appropriate).

    I don't see how that square is ever circled since neither want to compromise.

    So, it will be fought out.
    Netanyahu's government is almost as bad as Hamas.
    No, Netanyahu is bad, but they're nowhere near as bad.

    If Israel lays down its arms then Hamas would gladly kill every Jew from the river to the sea.
    If Hamas lays down its arms, the conflict would be over.
    Hamas' aim is to murder every Jew in the region.

    Netanyahu's aim is to ethnically cleanse every Palestinian from Gaza and the West Bank, and his government will use starvation as a means to achieve that aim.

    So yes, less bad, in the sense of being expulsionist, rather than exterminationist, but still pretty awful.
    Well the Israelis do at least provide aid to the Gazans as opposed to Hamas who steal it. I haven't seen the kind of clear reporting of the IDF committing torture rape and massacres that seem commonplace among the Russian military. Perhaps you know otherwise?
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1161081

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-sexual-abuse-palestinian-prisoners-rcna165811

    https://news.sky.com/story/24-palestinians-killed-by-israeli-fire-while-waiting-for-aid-distribution-says-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-13378432
    Forgive me for not paying to attention to claims from Hamas and whilst the sexual abuse of any individual prisoner is wrong that hardly makes it systemic. As for the UN Human Rights Council.............
    You really are an ignorant moron with an unhealthy obsession about Jews of whom you know none. I can't imagine why I engaged with you at all.
    Sorry are you a big fan of the UN?

    Here is a good interview with Danny Cohen former head of BBC News. The headline might rile a few people though!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfDMcWjuzlM
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,666
    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
    I don't think anyone is opposing that. It's that Hermer appears to have a knack of appearing on one side. Perhaps he would be a good person to advocate for the Soldier F.
  • Frank_BoothFrank_Booth Posts: 314
    tlg86 said:

    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
    I don't think anyone is opposing that. It's that Hermer appears to have a knack of appearing on one side. Perhaps he would be a good person to advocate for the Soldier F.
    Here is Lord Hermer visiting a controversial Mosque in Liverpool.

    https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1929183770239730032
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    edited June 4
    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though
  • eekeek Posts: 30,224
    edited June 4
    @BartholomewRoberts - found time to check things out and this is the relationship between allowances and employee NI cuts.

    Autumn 2022 - allowances frozen to 2028, the 1.25% increase introduced in the 2021 budget is dropped. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63555313

    Autumn 2023 - no changes to allowances (frozen until 28), 2% off national insurance (down to 10%) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67276717

    Spring / Hunt Budget 2024 - no changes to allowances (still frozen until 28) 2% off national insurance (down to 8%).
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68465603

    I will await your apology for being incorrect.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,224

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    Is a budget required immediately because I suspect working out what Trump's tariffwang plays out will make creating one impossible.
  • Frank_BoothFrank_Booth Posts: 314

    Scott_xP said:

    @atrupar.com‬

    Trump says he just spoke with Putin and describes Ukraine's recent drone attack in a way that makes it sound like Russia is a victim

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqsas6tgb22t

    Well, Putin is a victim - of a brilliant operation by UKraine that robbed him of his last AWACS and a third of his nuclear bomber fleet.

    Hurrah say all of us.
    The capitalising of the K was a mistake, right?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,694

    Scott_xP said:

    @atrupar.com‬

    Trump says he just spoke with Putin and describes Ukraine's recent drone attack in a way that makes it sound like Russia is a victim

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqsas6tgb22t

    Well, Putin is a victim - of a brilliant operation by UKraine that robbed him of his last AWACS and a third of his nuclear bomber fleet.

    Hurrah say all of us.
    *Two* A-50 AWACS by the sounds of it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    He has said he will table a budget but in the autumn

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-mark-carney-1.7538248
  • eekeek Posts: 30,224
    Scott_xP said:

    @atrupar.com‬

    Trump says he just spoke with Putin and describes Ukraine's recent drone attack in a way that makes it sound like Russia is a victim

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqsas6tgb22t

    Well if you look at Sunday in isolation with no care as to what happened before Russia was the victim of an unprovoked attack on it's military structure..

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    HYUFD said:

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    He has said he will table a budget but in the autumn

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-mark-carney-1.7538248
    The amendment was for one before the House rises for the summer. Carney is refusing
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse and did hard labour and lived off gruel
    No, that half is not an issue, which is why people work part time and claim UC for the other half of their income without bothering to work those hours.

    Its the other half of someone's potential income being taxed at 83% that is the issue.
    It is not taxed at 83%, it is loss of UC that makes up most of that, so as I said I expect you to be supporting scrapping UC completely and bringing back the workhouse with gruel and hard labour for those not in full time work to resolve that problem
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,562
    edited June 4
    algarkirk said:

    isam said:

    Dan Hodges says the cab rank rule is nonsense - lawyers can opt out if they like without censure

    Lord Hermer’s defenders are wrong, and Robert Jenrick is right. It’s time to stop pretending he was bound by the “Cab Rank Rule” > Mail Plus >

    https://x.com/dpjhodges/status/1930295866641784915?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    The point about the cab rank rule is not that anyone will take anything, the rule has too many obvious ways of avoiding any sort of literal meaning. It simply means that members of the bar can rightly, represent any cause, however unfashionable or apparently unmeritorious without being criticised for it.

    It is most obvious in crime. Huntley, Brady, Sutcliffe, Bellfield etc all had counsel of top quality representing their distasteful cause, doing their best for them. (At the tax payers expense). It's a mark of civilization.
    He consistently chose to represent outrageously anti British causes. And now he’s a British political appointee whose wages are paid by me, the British taxpayer

    So he has to deal with the political impact of his choices - and they were choices, not cab rank accidents. And if his career ends because of those choices damaging the man who appointed him - his good pal Keir Starmer - so be it
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,899

    Scott_xP said:

    @atrupar.com‬

    Trump says he just spoke with Putin and describes Ukraine's recent drone attack in a way that makes it sound like Russia is a victim

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqsas6tgb22t

    Well, Putin is a victim - of a brilliant operation by UKraine that robbed him of his last AWACS and a third of his nuclear bomber fleet.

    Hurrah say all of us.
    *Two* A-50 AWACS by the sounds of it.
    The question is also if they were the upgraded and modernised ones. If so, that’s a big deal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse
    Just as a matter of interest, do you think your "let's bring back the workhouse" policy will go down well with voters?
    Most Reform voters certainly, many Thatcherite Tories too I suspect.

    It is the easiest logical solution to Bart's whines about the benefits trap (and of course it was the Whigs who set them up not the Tories).

    I suspect most Reform voters would love to live in the mid 19th century, little to no welfare state, the workhouse, low tax, Farage doesn't need to worry about an NHS to fund, few immigrants and a mainly white population, no LGBT (at least not legally), we still had public hangings etc
    Indeed, who among us wouldn't want to live in a time when:

    - anyone could emigrate to the UK, with no restrictions at all
    - average life expectancy was about 45
    - home ownership rates were under 10%
    - and we all gave proper deference to our betters

    What a time to be an ordinary person, eh?
    For the core Reform voter it was ideal and of course in reality immigration to the UK was tiny relative to now
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    eek said:

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    Is a budget required immediately because I suspect working out what Trump's tariffwang plays out will make creating one impossible.
    By the time the house rises for Summer.
    The opposition suspect he is delaying to cover up the dire state of the Canadian economy so are forcing his hand. He's ignoring a parliament vote so a VoNC is guaranteed. And if the opposition all hold firm its over.
    Interesting stuff
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,454
    Andy_JS said:

    Oh dear...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/02/ash-regan-makes-underground-prostitution-blunder-gaffe/

    But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.

    “If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”

    Surely no-one is that stupid.
    You're talking about a woman who thought (a) joining the SNP was a good idea and then (b) thought joining Alba was a smart career option. We are not talking even the second drawer here.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,387
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Oh dear...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/02/ash-regan-makes-underground-prostitution-blunder-gaffe/

    But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.

    “If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”

    Surely no-one is that stupid.
    You're talking about a woman who thought (a) joining the SNP was a good idea and then (b) thought joining Alba was a smart career option. We are not talking even the second drawer here.
    Didn't she come close to being first minister of Scotland?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,562
    edited June 4
    In more exciting news I’ve been upgraded to the top level suite in the best hotel in the country

    Ok that country is Luxembourg but still. It’s kinda nice to know that I am in the best hotel room in an entire country

    Has anyone else done that? Maybe they’ve eaten the most expensive wildfowl in the lower 48 states, or worn the fanciest slippers in Ethiopia
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,454
    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Oh dear...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/02/ash-regan-makes-underground-prostitution-blunder-gaffe/

    But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.

    “If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”

    Surely no-one is that stupid.
    You're talking about a woman who thought (a) joining the SNP was a good idea and then (b) thought joining Alba was a smart career option. We are not talking even the second drawer here.
    Didn't she come close to being first minister of Scotland?
    The short answer is no. She was a candidate but not one with any chance of winning. And anyway....Yousaf actually did become FM of Scotland. Being a moron is no bar.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,936

    eek said:

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    Is a budget required immediately because I suspect working out what Trump's tariffwang plays out will make creating one impossible.
    By the time the house rises for Summer.
    The opposition suspect he is delaying to cover up the dire state of the Canadian economy so are forcing his hand. He's ignoring a parliament vote so a VoNC is guaranteed. And if the opposition all hold firm its over.
    Interesting stuff
    Given the Liberals have slightly expanded their lead over the Conservatives in current polls and while the NDP are fractionally up are still below double figures in most polls too I doubt Carney will be too annoyed if the opposition try and force a totally unnecessary election. Canadian voters though would be and would probably give him a landslide majority in response

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_46th_Canadian_federal_election
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    edited June 4
    Leon said:

    In more exciting news I’ve been upgraded to the top level suite in the best hotel in the country

    Ok that country is Luxembourg but still. It’s kinda nice to know that I am in the best hotel room in an entire country

    Has anyone else done that? Maybe they’ve eaten the most expensive wildfowl in the lower 48 states, or worn the fanciest shoes in Ethiopia

    I've tried to be the first voter at a polling booth in GEs a few times, I've never hit the front of the queue yet (i was the second to vote in Mid Norfolk in my ward in 2010). If I ever do then its if I can convince myself I got through the palaver and to the box in good time to beat every other ward in the UK!
    I was also highest person in Britain when I climbed Ben Nevis very early one morning many years ago(like anyone alone atop it)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,412
    Leon said:

    In more exciting news I’ve been upgraded to the top level suite in the best hotel in the country

    Ok that country is Luxembourg but still. It’s kinda nice to know that I am in the best hotel room in an entire country

    Has anyone else done that? Maybe they’ve eaten the most expensive wildfowl in the lower 48 states, or worn the fanciest slippers in Ethiopia

    "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,899
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Oh dear...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/02/ash-regan-makes-underground-prostitution-blunder-gaffe/

    But when asked how she responded to those who said the Bill could drive prostitution into an “unregulated and underground system”, she answered: “There is no basis for any of those assertions. If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground.

    “If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?”

    Surely no-one is that stupid.
    You're talking about a woman who thought (a) joining the SNP was a good idea and then (b) thought joining Alba was a smart career option. We are not talking even the second drawer here.
    Didn't she come close to being first minister of Scotland?
    The short answer is no. She was a candidate but not one with any chance of winning. And anyway....Yousaf actually did become FM of Scotland. Being a moron is no bar.
    She joined a party led by a man who was, according to polling, less popular than Boris Johnson in Scotland.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 897
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    There is no difference between 83% entirely self funded or 83% taxpayer funded. The effective tax rate is 83% either way.

    You can eliminate the issue by eliminating absurd tax rates and having a saner tax system. If people work full time as a result we'd get more taxes and pay less in benefits as a result.
    HALF the income of those on MW is now tax free, that is not an issue. The main issue is the level of benefits, even if more gradually withdrawn, so as I said on that logic scrap benefits so you either work full time or starve to death or live off charity, much like it worked in Victorian times when you either worked full time or went to the workhouse
    Just as a matter of interest, do you think your "let's bring back the workhouse" policy will go down well with voters?
    It's the Christian thing to do.
  • MustaphaMondeoMustaphaMondeo Posts: 308
    Monsal Trail is on the Derby to Manchester line closed 67 ish.

    The existing bit from Buxton to Manchester goes through Stockport. Over a viaduct already running at capacity. There’s a least a mile of it. It would need to be upgraded. #Stockportgridlock Thanks Angela!

    I’m doubtful.


  • Frank_BoothFrank_Booth Posts: 314
    I don't know but I suspect a lot of Reform voters are nostalgic for a time of their own youth rather than victorian Britain.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    Is a budget required immediately because I suspect working out what Trump's tariffwang plays out will make creating one impossible.
    By the time the house rises for Summer.
    The opposition suspect he is delaying to cover up the dire state of the Canadian economy so are forcing his hand. He's ignoring a parliament vote so a VoNC is guaranteed. And if the opposition all hold firm its over.
    Interesting stuff
    Given the Liberals have slightly expanded their lead over the Conservatives in current polls and while the NDP are fractionally up are still below double figures in most polls too I doubt Carney will be too annoyed if the opposition try and force a totally unnecessary election. Canadian voters though would be and would probably give him a landslide majority in response

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_46th_Canadian_federal_election
    I doubt Carney will be banking on the result of that one poll and his elbows up nonsense probably won't wash this time, but regardless, parliament is sovereign, if he ignores it he risks being ousted. Its not parliaments fault he hasn't got the numbers
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,387
    More cyber-attacks.

    "North Face and Cartier customer data stolen in cyber attacks"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39x3jpv8lyo
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,899

    I don't know but I suspect a lot of Reform voters are nostalgic for a time of their own youth rather than victorian Britain.

    Why not both?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,562

    Leon said:

    In more exciting news I’ve been upgraded to the top level suite in the best hotel in the country

    Ok that country is Luxembourg but still. It’s kinda nice to know that I am in the best hotel room in an entire country

    Has anyone else done that? Maybe they’ve eaten the most expensive wildfowl in the lower 48 states, or worn the fanciest shoes in Ethiopia

    I've tried to be the first voter at a polling booth in GEs a few times, I've never hit the front of the queue yet (i was the second to vote in Mid Norfolk in my ward in 2010). If I ever do then its if I can convince myself I got through the palaver and to the box in good time to beat every other ward in the UK!
    I was also highest person in Britain when I climbed Ben Nevis very early one morning many years ago(like anyone alone atop it)
    The Ben Nevis one is very cool. And oddly do-able
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,387
    edited June 4

    I don't know but I suspect a lot of Reform voters are nostalgic for a time of their own youth rather than victorian Britain.

    Funny to think a lot of them are being nostalgic for a time when a song with the lyrics "God save the Queen, a fascist regime" was in the charts.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    In more exciting news I’ve been upgraded to the top level suite in the best hotel in the country

    Ok that country is Luxembourg but still. It’s kinda nice to know that I am in the best hotel room in an entire country

    Has anyone else done that? Maybe they’ve eaten the most expensive wildfowl in the lower 48 states, or worn the fanciest shoes in Ethiopia

    I've tried to be the first voter at a polling booth in GEs a few times, I've never hit the front of the queue yet (i was the second to vote in Mid Norfolk in my ward in 2010). If I ever do then its if I can convince myself I got through the palaver and to the box in good time to beat every other ward in the UK!
    I was also highest person in Britain when I climbed Ben Nevis very early one morning many years ago(like anyone alone atop it)
    The Ben Nevis one is very cool. And oddly do-able
    I was oddly shattered afterwards lol
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,454
    eek said:

    @BartholomewRoberts - found time to check things out and this is the relationship between allowances and employee NI cuts.

    Autumn 2022 - allowances frozen to 2028, the 1.25% increase introduced in the 2021 budget is dropped. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63555313

    Autumn 2023 - no changes to allowances (frozen until 28), 2% off national insurance (down to 10%) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67276717

    Spring / Hunt Budget 2024 - no changes to allowances (still frozen until 28) 2% off national insurance (down to 8%).
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68465603

    I will await your apology for being incorrect.

    I am not sure what the argument was but this was the right policy equiperating the tax paid by those on pensions, dividends and rent with those who work for their money. The mistake was not increasing IT at the same time when the deficit was excessive.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,995

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    Is a budget required immediately because I suspect working out what Trump's tariffwang plays out will make creating one impossible.
    By the time the house rises for Summer.
    The opposition suspect he is delaying to cover up the dire state of the Canadian economy so are forcing his hand. He's ignoring a parliament vote so a VoNC is guaranteed. And if the opposition all hold firm its over.
    Interesting stuff
    Given the Liberals have slightly expanded their lead over the Conservatives in current polls and while the NDP are fractionally up are still below double figures in most polls too I doubt Carney will be too annoyed if the opposition try and force a totally unnecessary election. Canadian voters though would be and would probably give him a landslide majority in response

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_46th_Canadian_federal_election
    I doubt Carney will be banking on the result of that one poll and his elbows up nonsense probably won't wash this time, but regardless, parliament is sovereign, if he ignores it he risks being ousted. Its not parliaments fault he hasn't got the numbers
    "I doubt Carney will be banking..."

    Well he always has that to fall back on if he is ousted from office.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,365
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps it's the other way round. Perhaps the perception is that Nigel is setting the agenda, but that's only because immigration is the talking point of the moment and Nigel is heavily associated with that. When the talking point moves on - as such things tend to - Nigel's perceived influence may wane.

    Demographic change isn't a just talking point but the most important political fact about Britain in 2025 and beyond.
    Yes, the ageing population and how we can support them.

    Axing the Triple Lock and ensuring work pays as well as benefits do would be a good start.
    The minimum wage for a full time worker working 40 hours a week is now £25,396 and the lowest earners don't pay tax and those on UC have to be looking for work or they get sanctioned
    40 hours a week is more than 9-5 since minimum wage workers don't generally get paid for breaks.

    And for people on UC working 16 hours a week, which is a great many people, HMRC will take about 100% of their earnings they work over 16 so why the hell do you expect people to work 40 hours instead of 16 in that scenario? People are rational.

    Its the Laffer Curve in action. Why work more hours if you won't get paid any money for it?
    Not since UC which reduces benefits only gradually as you earn more not all in one go. You also now pay no income tax on earnings under £12,570
    Yes, under UC, your ignorance is showing again.

    'For UC claimants required to work, the minimum number of hours was increased from 15 to 18, on Monday 13 May.

    The rule change means 180,000 people will have to work more or risk losing their benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions says.

    The 18-hour minimum applies to people earning the National Living Wage (£11.44 for those aged 21 or over).

    Someone earning more per hour can work fewer hours, as long as their total earnings meet a level called the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET).

    The AET now stands at £892, which is what you would earn in a month if you worked for 18 hours a week at the minimum wage.'

    Over the work allowance too not all benefits are lost either but tapered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126
    Pathetic tinkering at the edges. Anyone working those 18 hours is still going to be facing a combined real tax rate of 100%, so people will go from doing 16 hours and no more, to 18 and no more.

    That's not much of an improvement.
    No, they pay no income tax or NI at all for earnings under £12,500k and benefits for earnings earnt over 18 hours a week are not all lost now either but only gradually tapered down.

    Those on minimum wage now earn more than those the state pension alone and many of those on UC do too
    £12,500 per annum equates to less than 20 hours per week on National Minimum Wage.

    So no, its not a "gradual taper", the taper is nearly 100% and when you include extra costs it can be over 100%.
    So at least half of the working week for those on NMW is tax free then.

    The taper is about 55% over 18 hours worked
    So the marginal tax rate (even ignoring the impact of withdrawal of benefits) is higher than for someone wearing £200k/year?
    Someone earning £200 k a year pays tax on the vast majority of their income, including higher and additional rate income tax.

    Someone on NMW gets at least half their income tax free and the rest is only basic rate income tax
    Do you understand the dangers of high marginal tax rates on incentives?
    So you back scrapping the additional rate tax back to 40% then I presume?
    45% is not high compared to 55% plus 28%

    Would you be ok with the additional rate going to to the same rate those on UC face in marginal terms?
    Those on UC get their benefits taxpayer subsidised by those paying the 45%, you could of course just scrap UC so you either work full time or head down to the foodbank or starve
    Those paying 45% have to pay even more because of the fact the people on UC play the system we've created.

    If we had a saner system that meant people worked full time instead we'd get more tax revenue and pay less in benefits.

    The Laffer Curve in action. 83% marginal tax is too high.
    It isn't 83% marginal tax as most of that 83% you are using is loss of taxpayer funded UC gradually withdrawn as you work and earn more.

    You will never eliminate that issue completely unless as I said you scrap UC completely so you either do full time paid work, have to go to a soup kitchen or foodbank to eat or starve to death
    Whilst you are technically correct that it's a benefit withdrawal rather than a tax, it doesn't alter the reality that for people in this situation they end up with a whole £2.07 per additional hour worked.

    There is no solution which doesn't either a) cost more, at least in the short term, or b)reduce the level of benefits some people get.

    Personally, I think time limiting benefits not related to ill health or old age is probably necessary - a generous level of unemployment benefit for 6 months (say £1200/month), and modest level for the subsequent 6 months (say £600/month) followed by £100/month +food stamps would probably achieve almost all that unemployment benefit is intended to achieve.

    Also, we should kill or significantly reduce the NMW - if we can build a system where it's acceptable for employees take home £2.07/hr, it's bonkers to make it cost £15/hr to employ them - neither side of the bargain is getting a good deal.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,562
    Just realised I must have been one of the “lowest people on earth” (yes yes hahaha) when I went to the Dead Sea. It’s the lowest depression on earth

    Annoying. I should have made sure I went to the absolute lowest spot of all
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    edited June 4

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    Is a budget required immediately because I suspect working out what Trump's tariffwang plays out will make creating one impossible.
    By the time the house rises for Summer.
    The opposition suspect he is delaying to cover up the dire state of the Canadian economy so are forcing his hand. He's ignoring a parliament vote so a VoNC is guaranteed. And if the opposition all hold firm its over.
    Interesting stuff
    Given the Liberals have slightly expanded their lead over the Conservatives in current polls and while the NDP are fractionally up are still below double figures in most polls too I doubt Carney will be too annoyed if the opposition try and force a totally unnecessary election. Canadian voters though would be and would probably give him a landslide majority in response

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_46th_Canadian_federal_election
    I doubt Carney will be banking on the result of that one poll and his elbows up nonsense probably won't wash this time, but regardless, parliament is sovereign, if he ignores it he risks being ousted. Its not parliaments fault he hasn't got the numbers
    "I doubt Carney will be banking..."

    Well he always has that to fall back on if he is ousted from office.
    Nah, surely he's Mr Canada all of a sudden since moving back there a few months ago or whenever it was? He'll become a mountie or something.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,224
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    @BartholomewRoberts - found time to check things out and this is the relationship between allowances and employee NI cuts.

    Autumn 2022 - allowances frozen to 2028, the 1.25% increase introduced in the 2021 budget is dropped. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63555313

    Autumn 2023 - no changes to allowances (frozen until 28), 2% off national insurance (down to 10%) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67276717

    Spring / Hunt Budget 2024 - no changes to allowances (still frozen until 28) 2% off national insurance (down to 8%).
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68465603

    I will await your apology for being incorrect.

    I am not sure what the argument was but this was the right policy equiperating the tax paid by those on pensions, dividends and rent with those who work for their money. The mistake was not increasing IT at the same time when the deficit was excessive.
    Remember my continual argument that the 4% cut in NI should have been reversed via 3p on income tax.

    Bart said the allowances were frozen alongside the cuts so it was quid pro quo - my memory was that the frozen allowances were earlier so I went back to check (and my memory was correct).
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,222
    edited June 4
    Leon said:

    Just realised I must have been one of the “lowest people on earth” (yes yes hahaha) when I went to the Dead Sea. It’s the lowest depression on earth

    Annoying. I should have made sure I went to the absolute lowest spot of all

    Speleology should be your new calling.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,585
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    So in Canada Carney is refusing to table a budget despite parliament amending the King's Speech instructing him to.
    NDP, CPC and Bloc all supported the amendment.
    Carney should now be facing a VoNC and if the parties that passed the amendment vote NC, Carney's government falls immediately.
    I expect the NDP to fold like the chicken littles they are though

    Is a budget required immediately because I suspect working out what Trump's tariffwang plays out will make creating one impossible.
    By the time the house rises for Summer.
    The opposition suspect he is delaying to cover up the dire state of the Canadian economy so are forcing his hand. He's ignoring a parliament vote so a VoNC is guaranteed. And if the opposition all hold firm its over.
    Interesting stuff
    Given the Liberals have slightly expanded their lead over the Conservatives in current polls and while the NDP are fractionally up are still below double figures in most polls too I doubt Carney will be too annoyed if the opposition try and force a totally unnecessary election. Canadian voters though would be and would probably give him a landslide majority in response

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_46th_Canadian_federal_election
    The opposition are playing games . They know full well that any budget now wouldn’t last two weeks because of the tariff uncertainties . And bringing the government down would go down very badly with many voters .
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,249
    Leon said:

    Just realised I must have been one of the “lowest people on earth” (yes yes hahaha) when I went to the Dead Sea. It’s the lowest depression on earth

    Annoying. I should have made sure I went to the absolute lowest spot of all

    Presumably everywhere on the shore of the Dead Sea is equally low? So if you got to the shore, you were the equal-lowest person apart from any who were underwater (are there any in deep-sea research bases? I have no idea).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,562

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    In more exciting news I’ve been upgraded to the top level suite in the best hotel in the country

    Ok that country is Luxembourg but still. It’s kinda nice to know that I am in the best hotel room in an entire country

    Has anyone else done that? Maybe they’ve eaten the most expensive wildfowl in the lower 48 states, or worn the fanciest shoes in Ethiopia

    I've tried to be the first voter at a polling booth in GEs a few times, I've never hit the front of the queue yet (i was the second to vote in Mid Norfolk in my ward in 2010). If I ever do then its if I can convince myself I got through the palaver and to the box in good time to beat every other ward in the UK!
    I was also highest person in Britain when I climbed Ben Nevis very early one morning many years ago(like anyone alone atop it)
    The Ben Nevis one is very cool. And oddly do-able
    I was oddly shattered afterwards lol
    Kilimanjaro is surprisingly climbable. I have fairly unfit friends that have done it. If you did and you could get it to yourself for even a second you’d be the highest person in Africa apart from my friend Tim the poet when he did opium tea in Tangier in 2009
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 11,036
    Leon said:

    Just realised I must have been one of the “lowest people on earth” (yes yes hahaha) when I went to the Dead Sea. It’s the lowest depression on earth

    Annoying. I should have made sure I went to the absolute lowest spot of all

    Take some crisps and you could be the Earth's bottom feeder
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,557
    edited June 4
    BREAKING: "Putin will have to respond to the drone attacks" says the Kreml ... no hang on, says Donald Trump!
Sign In or Register to comment.