Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
The fact no government has sorted this for donkey years is crazy. Yes they will get the "tax break for the rich" headline, but 2-3 years down the line they would be able to demonstrate it raises more revenue.
There was a tax change that Osborne made (which I can't remember exact details), he got the same incoming and then the next year should up and was able to say it now raises more revenue and that was the end of that. So much so I can't even remember the change.
Yes.
He cut the top rate from 50p to 45p.
It raised more revenue than year because people delayed dividend payments until the 45% tax rate came in. They didn't report the tax take the following year because the revenue would have dropped.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
The fact no government has sorted this for donkey years is crazy. Yes they will get the "tax break for the rich" headline, but 2-3 years down the line they would be able to demonstrate it raises more revenue.
There was a tax change that Osborne made (which I can't remember exact details), he got the same incoming and then the next year should up and was able to say it now raises more revenue and that was the end of that. So much so I can't even remember the change.
Also, the Tories have got to learn that people are going to say this about them anyway, no matter what they do, even if they went round Bootle dressed in rags whilst whipping themselves raw whilst chanting Marx and throwing around every last gold sovereign they had.
No-one really cares.
So, they may as well accept it and double-down on the one area where they can rebuild a brand: fiscal and economic competence.
This is true, but it is also what they are doing, or trying to do.
I think Hunt would be an asset in the Shadow COTE role to underline the point. The Tories need all their big players in the squad just now. I actually don't think in theory that Braverman would be a bad addition either, though I am not sure she can be trusted with hubby in Reform.
On a sort of related note, if we need to raise taxes, why don't we raise them on remittances? Trump has done this with some success. With a far higher percentage of immigrants in the working population, a great deal of money gets sent overseas, reducing the multiplier effect within the domestic economy. Tax it.
Happily, it isn't. There are people there, even among the performers, who recognise nuance and who have opinions which might differ from that of Jeremy Corbyn. But it's the twats who draw attention to themselves. Possibly the non-twats recognise the brevity afforded to them between songs, with audiences afforded only the dumb unary response of cheering or staying schtum, isn't really the best format for discussion of complex topics.
The proposals themselves do sound very condescending - the idea people are not engaged with politics because of the Commons says Divisions is silly - but it does sound like when people focus on very small things they can change, as a substitute for tacking big issues they know they cannot, and fool themselves they are achieving great things.
You want to change the terminology, fine, but that it alienates the public is just stupid; most of the public don't know who parliament even works - nor do many MPs for that matter! - so they don't know about the termonology to be confused by it.
Whether you call it a division or a vote is immaterial. If they want to modernise, make it an electronic vote in 30 seconds, rather than missing about for 20 minutes trooping through the lobbies.
Pretty sure they want to do that as well.
Which I don't really endorse or oppose as I don't see the harm in the lobby approach but it is not a big deal, and would at least serve some kind of purpose in making things much faster, unlike adjusting terminology.
There's just too much procedure involved in any legislative process, necessarily so, to referring to things differently making a difference.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
Spot on. Casino is falling into the 'it affects me so it must be important' trap.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
The simple solution is surely to criminalize people attempting to evade tax by not working. Every single one of those people earning £95k or so should be investigated.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
That is a graph of £1,000 income bands. The blip represents about 10-15,000 people. Given the curve of the graph resumes to trend after £100k, it's probable that there are c.15k people forgoing an additional gross income of a few £k at most.
As I said, any tax cliff-edge is wrong but removing this one would make eff-all difference to the economy as a whole.
As if Lewis Goodall wouldn't be in favour of letting a million people in in any other circumstance.
It is a spurious argument as the UK needed immigrant workers to keep the wheels turning after the baddies from the East of Europe returned home after Brexit. Sir Boris was very candid that the shortfall could be replaced by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent. At the time it was a Brexit necessity.
Drivel. Net immigration to the UK from the EU was positive from 2016 to 2021 and thereafter negative in tiny numbers. No replacement was involved. Augmentation, possibly.
How very dare you.
I suspect statistics will suggest that Eastern Europeans have returned in droves since 2019 until today. The dates you have picked (i.e from the Referendum) do not make sense in the context of the Starmerwave.
Let's ask the ONS:
Net positive until 2021, then small net negative. Were it not for covid, it probably would have been net positive all along.
Points for using "how very dare you" unironically though. Recherché.
I think Eastern European migration has been rather more negative, while migration from France and the like has continued.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
The simple solution is surely to criminalize people attempting to evade tax by not working. Every single one of those people earning £95k or so should be investigated.
If you look carefully the blip is only at £98k (a few 1000), £99k (maybe 12,000) - and bizarrely a few 1000 at £100k too (presumably those who feel they should hold back didn't like to refuse their larger than expected annual bonus).
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
The simple solution is surely to criminalize people attempting to evade tax by not working. Every single one of those people earning £95k or so should be investigated.
If you look carefully the blip is only at £98k (a few 1000), £99k (maybe 12,000) - and bizarrely a few 1000 at £100k too (presumably those who feel they should hold back didn't like to refuse their larger than expected annual bonus).
Not too many 'tax evaders' to investigate.
Can someone please digitise the plot and properly calculate the integral?
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
As if Lewis Goodall wouldn't be in favour of letting a million people in in any other circumstance.
It is a spurious argument as the UK needed immigrant workers to keep the wheels turning after the baddies from the East of Europe returned home after Brexit. Sir Boris was very candid that the shortfall could be replaced by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent. At the time it was a Brexit necessity.
Drivel. Net immigration to the UK from the EU was positive from 2016 to 2021 and thereafter negative in tiny numbers. No replacement was involved. Augmentation, possibly.
How very dare you.
I suspect statistics will suggest that Eastern Europeans have returned in droves since 2019 until today. The dates you have picked (i.e from the Referendum) do not make sense in the context of the Starmerwave.
Let's ask the ONS:
Net positive until 2021, then small net negative. Were it not for covid, it probably would have been net positive all along.
Points for using "how very dare you" unironically though. Recherché.
I think Eastern European migration has been rather more negative, while migration from France and the like has continued.
Do you know if any numbers are collected? I have anecdotal evidence that Italian immigration has held up, but nothing formal.
The proposals themselves do sound very condescending - the idea people are not engaged with politics because of the Commons says Divisions is silly - but it does sound like when people focus on very small things they can change, as a substitute for tacking big issues they know they cannot, and fool themselves they are achieving great things.
You want to change the terminology, fine, but that it alienates the public is just stupid; most of the public don't know who parliament even works - nor do many MPs for that matter! - so they don't know about the termonology to be confused by it.
Displacement activity
Indeed. But this one is particularly weird to me - do they really think the word Bill is confusing to people? And if they do, why would 'proposed law' be any better, since no doubt people would be just as confused by the word Law?
This is like Douglas Carswell acting like a populist hero for Periscoping (remember that?) things in Parliament.
Perhaps they had a focus group and the group said they didn't know what Parliament did?
Who knows.
It is almost at Cones Hotline level.
In a literate world with free education, media and the internet it isn't possible for a mature grown up to not know the parliamentary meaning of the word 'Bill' unless they don't want to know. It is not a word with any inherent complications.
A term like 'proposed law' is imprecise. Lots of binding regulation and law is not in Acts of Parliament. The word 'Bill' is precise.
And it's endless. 'speaker', 'leader of the house', 'shadow minister', 'minister of state', 'winding up' and a million other terms - they can all be replaced to the annoyance of those who care, and failing to inform those who don't.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
That is a graph of £1,000 income bands. The blip represents about 10-15,000 people. Given the curve of the graph resumes to trend after £100k, it's probable that there are c.15k people forgoing an additional gross income of a few £k at most.
As I said, any tax cliff-edge is wrong but removing this one would make eff-all difference to the economy as a whole.
What about the saintly surgeons? They were whinging about this a few years ago.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
The simple solution is surely to criminalize people attempting to evade tax by not working. Every single one of those people earning £95k or so should be investigated.
If you look carefully the blip is only at £98k (a few 1000), £99k (maybe 12,000) - and bizarrely a few 1000 at £100k too (presumably those who feel they should hold back didn't like to refuse their larger than expected annual bonus).
Not too many 'tax evaders' to investigate.
So, you're saying that if there were "just" 15,000 rapists, we shouldn't bother to investigate?
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
That is a graph of £1,000 income bands. The blip represents about 10-15,000 people. Given the curve of the graph resumes to trend after £100k, it's probable that there are c.15k people forgoing an additional gross income of a few £k at most.
As I said, any tax cliff-edge is wrong but removing this one would make eff-all difference to the economy as a whole.
What about the saintly surgeons? They were whinging about this a few years ago.
... and? It's an issue, just not as fundamental as people are suggesting. I think we all agree it should be fixed though.
Tbh, there are plenty of reasons why you might stop working 37 hours once you're on about £50k and you're on the housing ladder. Personally, I'm one promotion away from dropping to 4 days a week because I feel more constrained by time, not cash. I'm not super driven, just want to have fun and drink decent coffee and wine.
If kids come along, it's even more obvious a decision. What's frustrating is I can get most of my work done in 2-3 days. Shouldn't really take a pay cut when dropping hours.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
The simple solution is surely to criminalize people attempting to evade tax by not working. Every single one of those people earning £95k or so should be investigated.
If you look carefully the blip is only at £98k (a few 1000), £99k (maybe 12,000) - and bizarrely a few 1000 at £100k too (presumably those who feel they should hold back didn't like to refuse their larger than expected annual bonus).
Not too many 'tax evaders' to investigate.
So, you're saying that if there were "just" 15,000 rapists, we shouldn't bother to investigate?
I know Vanilla is glitchy, but handing your account over to WilliamGlenn? That's a bug and a half.
'A sprawling budget bill in the US Senate could cut health insurance coverage for nearly 12 million Americans and add nearly $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to new estimates.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
The simple solution is surely to criminalize people attempting to evade tax by not working. Every single one of those people earning £95k or so should be investigated.
If you look carefully the blip is only at £98k (a few 1000), £99k (maybe 12,000) - and bizarrely a few 1000 at £100k too (presumably those who feel they should hold back didn't like to refuse their larger than expected annual bonus).
Not too many 'tax evaders' to investigate.
So, you're saying that if there were "just" 15,000 rapists, we shouldn't bother to investigate?
I know Vanilla is glitchy, but handing your account over to WilliamGlenn? That's a bug and a half.
Oh my God! Popular music being political and anti-establishment! Whatever next!
The Guardian has an Adrian Chiles piece on his Glastonbury experience.
Is it time to declare the festival defunct ?
No, Rod Stewart, Ronnie Wood and Lulu and Mick Hucknall this afternoon were excellent and no politics
Agreed, and all of them have had long and incredible successful music careers that some of these virtual signalling wannabees can only ever dream of achieving.
'A sprawling budget bill in the US Senate could cut health insurance coverage for nearly 12 million Americans and add nearly $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to new estimates.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
'A sprawling budget bill in the US Senate could cut health insurance coverage for nearly 12 million Americans and add nearly $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to new estimates.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
'A sprawling budget bill in the US Senate could cut health insurance coverage for nearly 12 million Americans and add nearly $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to new estimates.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
'A sprawling budget bill in the US Senate could cut health insurance coverage for nearly 12 million Americans and add nearly $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to new estimates.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
Unsolicited TV recommendation "Wonderland: Science Fiction in the Atomic Age". Recent 'Sky Arts' show about the history of Sci-fi and it's inter-twining with modern politics and culture.
Misses quite a few things I'd have pointed at as key works, but also introduced me to quite a few I'd never heard of.
'A sprawling budget bill in the US Senate could cut health insurance coverage for nearly 12 million Americans and add nearly $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to new estimates.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
I'm not sure if I've ever met someone who earns around that cliff-edge. I've met many people who are nowhere near it of course, and then a few godly types who are way above it and can afford for their 'tax affairs' to be 'efficient'.
But I'm all in favour of a more straightforward tax/benefit/perk line. The UK rules and laws would make a lawyer in a Kafka-esque Byzantine play confused. And, now that I type that out, I realise - would also make them more wealthy.
Oh my God! Popular music being political and anti-establishment! Whatever next!
Must say I can’t be bothered to be annoyed by music artists having extreme opinions. These are generally people who’ve never known anything but being paid to indulge utopian feelings with no consequences, and that is where you find the best art. Most of the musicians I like have politics that I roll my eyes at nowadays, although thirty years ago I’d have been right with them. If they were cautious, middle management types, their output would be pretty uninspiring
Cricket is a lifelong relationship, not an engagement.
Cricket is the most boring "sport" in the world, even more boring than golf.
The one and only baseball game I’ve seen live went to the seventh innings without a run being scored. That’s a boring sport.
Cricket is the closest evocation of the old England I can come up with, certainly when it’s a village match and beers after.
I remember as a youngster being quite bored of cricket. Then someone explained to me that it was just a pleasant background noise to go with your picnic. Which I warmed to.
Cricket is a lifelong relationship, not an engagement.
Cricket is the most boring "sport" in the world, even more boring than golf.
The one and only baseball game I’ve seen live went to the seventh innings without a run being scored. That’s a boring sport.
Cricket is the closest evocation of the old England I can come up with, certainly when it’s a village match and beers after.
Evening, PB.
Yes, i find cricket more like a religious and cultural artefact than a spott. I personally find it incredibly dull to watch, but enjoyed playing it at school. Chaq'un a son gout and all that, though, and better to let a thousand flowers bloom.
Cricket is a lifelong relationship, not an engagement.
Cricket is the most boring "sport" in the world, even more boring than golf.
The one and only baseball game I’ve seen live went to the seventh innings without a run being scored. That’s a boring sport.
Cricket is the closest evocation of the old England I can come up with, certainly when it’s a village match and beers after.
I remember as a youngster being quite bored of cricket. Then someone explained to me that it was just a pleasant background noise to go with your picnic. Which I warmed to.
I absolutely love it but, as you say, it’s more of something going on in the background than a sport that demands your constant attention. That’s what’s so lovely about it.
The proposals themselves do sound very condescending - the idea people are not engaged with politics because of the Commons says Divisions is silly - but it does sound like when people focus on very small things they can change, as a substitute for tacking big issues they know they cannot, and fool themselves they are achieving great things.
You want to change the terminology, fine, but that it alienates the public is just stupid; most of the public don't know who parliament even works - nor do many MPs for that matter! - so they don't know about the termonology to be confused by it.
Whether you call it a division or a vote is immaterial. If they want to modernise, make it an electronic vote in 30 seconds, rather than missing about for 20 minutes trooping through the lobbies.
Unintended consequences – often the only chance a backbencher has to see a minister is to sidle up to them in the division lobbies.
As if Lewis Goodall wouldn't be in favour of letting a million people in in any other circumstance.
It is a spurious argument as the UK needed immigrant workers to keep the wheels turning after the baddies from the East of Europe returned home after Brexit. Sir Boris was very candid that the shortfall could be replaced by our friends from the Indian Subcontinent. At the time it was a Brexit necessity.
Drivel. Net immigration to the UK from the EU was positive from 2016 to 2021 and thereafter negative in tiny numbers. No replacement was involved. Augmentation, possibly.
How very dare you.
I suspect statistics will suggest that Eastern Europeans have returned in droves since 2019 until today. The dates you have picked (i.e from the Referendum) do not make sense in the context of the Starmerwave.
Let's ask the ONS:
Net positive until 2021, then small net negative. Were it not for covid, it probably would have been net positive all along.
Points for using "how very dare you" unironically though. Recherché.
I think Eastern European migration has been rather more negative, while migration from France and the like has continued.
Bumped into an Uzbek in sunny Kent yesterday. He was lost. Seems we are searching further and further for temporary labour.
Could this be plotted against Conservative governments?
The first step if the financial crisis - courtesy of Gordon Browm. The plateau afterwards is the "auterirty" the Left moaned incessantly about. The next step change is Covid. This is followed by another plateau, Reeves will be lucky to hold this.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
It's approaching the top 5% now but the top 2% pay 39% (and rising) of all income tax. So, yes, it's significant if a good chunk of them decide not to work more, not work much at all, or work overseas. And the message it sends to entrepreneurs both at home, and looking to invest here from overseas, is that Britain is open to and interested in rewarding success - unlocking energy & growth.
Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.
Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
I'm not sure if I've ever met someone who earns around that cliff-edge. I've met many people who are nowhere near it of course, and then a few godly types who are way above it and can afford for their 'tax affairs' to be 'efficient'.
But I'm all in favour of a more straightforward tax/benefit/perk line. The UK rules and laws would make a lawyer in a Kafka-esque Byzantine play confused. And, now that I type that out, I realise - would also make them more wealthy.
Good morning everyone. A hot day incoming - I'm told 32C here.
One thing I note, is Mini Trump coming to Nottinghamshire?
Two things here, where the Reform UK Council Leader is afaics violating the Notts CC Constitution and reducing scrutiny:
1 - He is restricting the ability of Opposition Councillors to ask questions in public meetings. In the Constitution they get a submitted question, and a supplementary.
2 - This is important amongst other things because, as we remarked on Election night, Notts has a sharp NNW/SSE divide between RefUK and everyone else.
He could change it by making a proposal for amendment under normal procedure and rules, making his argument and winning the vote in full council, but he hasn't. He should know this, as he has a staff of senior officers to advise him.
From here I can't whether this is due to the Klutz Collective nature RefUK, or if like Trump they think they are above the normal rules.
Recessions happen. People who bemoan "ah but if this didn't happen" are fools, shit happens.
If you're in office for a decade or longer, you should be planning for, and prepared for, a recession to happen in that window.
The big problem in that graph is not the steps, which were unavoidable, its what preceded the first one.
In 2002 we were in an extremely healthy position. Budget surplus and growth so debt to GDP was falling significantly. Had that continued for 5 more years then when the financial crisis hit we'd not only have gone in with lower debt, but more importantly gone in with a healthy surplus. So our countercyclical spending wouldn't have hurt so much.
In 2020 by comparison we went in not with a budget surplus, but with at least with debt to GDP falling instead of rising. Much healthier position.
As a result of being healthier going in, we came out without as much of a rise overall.
'A sprawling budget bill in the US Senate could cut health insurance coverage for nearly 12 million Americans and add nearly $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to new estimates.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
Dems might be wise to let it pass somehow. It is a disaster for the GOP going forward.
I doubt there's much they can do to stop it, as the GOP 'moderates' in Congress largely seem to be caving.
It will be a disaster for the US going forward.
The USD is looking increasingly fragile- the deliberate consequence of Trump's policies. The unintended consequences will include a permanent and structural fall in international investment in the US economy. If you keep breaking the rules, sooner or later, you don't have anyone to play with. The recognition of this will be when the zuS markets hap downwards, rather than just drifting down as at present. I thing there is a decent chance it could happen this year.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
It's approaching the top 5% now but the top 2% pay 39% (and rising) of all income tax. So, yes, it's significant if a good chunk of them decide not to work more, not work much at all, or work overseas. And the message it sends to entrepreneurs both at home, and looking to invest here from overseas, is that Britain is open to and interested in rewarding success - unlocking energy & growth.
Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.
Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.
Both are making us poorer.
Yes, cliff edges affect behaviour.
I've met loads more who change behaviour because of the 83% cliff edge. I've been literally spat at, more than once, because the job I was offering I wouldn't pay cash in hand for so they wouldn't take it due to that cliff edge.
We need to eliminate all the cliff edges in our tax system.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
Having been over the cliff edge myself, I don't buy that.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
I've never met anyone who doesn't calculate what extra hours, or a salary rise, earns them. It's literally the first thing someone does.
You might want it to be true that people decide to work hard regardless of taxation rates. But that's not how the real-world works.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
I'm not sure if I've ever met someone who earns around that cliff-edge. I've met many people who are nowhere near it of course, and then a few godly types who are way above it and can afford for their 'tax affairs' to be 'efficient'.
But I'm all in favour of a more straightforward tax/benefit/perk line. The UK rules and laws would make a lawyer in a Kafka-esque Byzantine play confused. And, now that I type that out, I realise - would also make them more wealthy.
I think that's a valid point - but that will require moves to balance incentives away from London, and to prevent financial engineers treating UK industry as an asset mine.
Sir K returning to the proposals he has backed down on for adjusting regulation of Private Equity is part of that. I think another part is around the Online Services Tax, and the ability of companies not based here to operate businesses here effectively outside the system.
Even the significantly increased US ownership of companies on our stock exchange needs a look at, and a way of tipping the trends the other way.
I saw a quote last week, saying that the biggest issue around new companies seeking to grow to international majors in the UK is availability of finance.
She was protesting at a Pride day, and caused enough trouble that she ended up getting herself arrested. In those circs, people with a public position just leave when the coppers tell them to go. I wonder what the Daily T podcast will say about this, or if we will make a JD Vance speech as a martyr?
A peripatetic history - since 2019 she has gone Labour -> Socialist Labour Party (Scargill's lot)-> Party Of Women (Posie Parker & co) -> Reform. I think that's as many affiliations as Lee Anderson.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
It's approaching the top 5% now but the top 2% pay 39% (and rising) of all income tax. So, yes, it's significant if a good chunk of them decide not to work more, not work much at all, or work overseas. And the message it sends to entrepreneurs both at home, and looking to invest here from overseas, is that Britain is open to and interested in rewarding success - unlocking energy & growth.
Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.
Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.
Both are making us poorer.
But it's not even that 2% or 5% affected by the cliff edge, as has been shown to you. Jeff Bezos is not affected by it, as he earns rather more than it.
And I agree that the the proportion of all income tax that is paid by the top 5% is absolutely ridiculous. But given the top rate of tax is only 45%, and 40% from £50k to £125k, that's a function of enormous income inequality, not punitive tax rates.
And it's not about being "nice and fair". 90% of the UK population earn less than £70k - if you want to generate meaningful growth, you're going to have to bring along some of them as well simply by weight of numbers. We see exactly this attitude around London, which the economy is now so reliant on but also why we've generated such massive regional inequalities.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
It's approaching the top 5% now but the top 2% pay 39% (and rising) of all income tax. So, yes, it's significant if a good chunk of them decide not to work more, not work much at all, or work overseas. And the message it sends to entrepreneurs both at home, and looking to invest here from overseas, is that Britain is open to and interested in rewarding success - unlocking energy & growth.
Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.
Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.
Both are making us poorer.
Yes, cliff edges affect behaviour.
I've met loads more who change behaviour because of the 83% cliff edge. I've been literally spat at, more than once, because the job I was offering I wouldn't pay cash in hand for so they wouldn't take it due to that cliff edge.
We need to eliminate all the cliff edges in our tax system.
Totally agree.
Sorry to hear your experience. It doesn't sound like the type of employee you'd want in any event.
Probably one of the tax cuts that'd be the biggest drivers of growth is removing the 100k cliff edge, including the childcare voucher removal, just because it would ensure that many people who currently do 3 or 4 days a week to stay beneath it would suddenly find it worth their while to do 5 days or take a new job in the 100-125k band and we'd get a major economic boost.
I entirely agree with the principle, but only about 2% (might be higher now) earn that much. It's not going to have the transformative effect on growth you think it will.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
It's approaching the top 5% now but the top 2% pay 39% (and rising) of all income tax. So, yes, it's significant if a good chunk of them decide not to work more, not work much at all, or work overseas. And the message it sends to entrepreneurs both at home, and looking to invest here from overseas, is that Britain is open to and interested in rewarding success - unlocking energy & growth.
Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.
Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.
Both are making us poorer.
But it's not even that 2% or 5% affected by the cliff edge, as has been shown to you. Jeff Bezos is not affected by it, as he earns rather more than it.
And I agree that the the proportion of all income tax that is paid by the top 5% is absolutely ridiculous. But given the top rate of tax is only 45%, and 40% from £50k to £125k, that's a function of enormous income inequality, not punitive tax rates.
And it's not about being "nice and fair". 90% of the UK population earn less than £70k - if you want to generate meaningful growth, you're going to have to bring along some of them as well simply by weight of numbers. We see exactly this attitude around London, which the economy is now so reliant on but also why we've generated such massive regional inequalities.
You haven't shown that at all. And you seem to have missed the Jeff Bezos joke.
If your wider point if that meaningful growth must mean that a rising tide lifts all boats then, yes, I agree - that's why I'm interested in maximising macroeconomic growth and tax revenue because it will allow us to invest more in education, skills, infrastructure and science and industry around the country.
Happily, it isn't. There are people there, even among the performers, who recognise nuance and who have opinions which might differ from that of Jeremy Corbyn. But it's the twats who draw attention to themselves. Possibly the non-twats recognise the brevity afforded to them between songs, with audiences afforded only the dumb unary response of cheering or staying schtum, isn't really the best format for discussion of complex topics.
There have always been twats at music festivals, it’s not particularly difficult to find extreme political viewpoints among creative communities.
The difference this year has been the BBC’s attitude, promoting rather than ignoring those espousing extremist politics as part of their act.
She was protesting at a Pride day, and caused enough trouble that she ended up getting herself arrested. In those circs, people with a public position just leave when the coppers tell them to go. I wonder what the Daily T podcast will say about this, or if we will make a JD Vance speech as a martyr?
A peripatetic history - since 2019 she has gone Labour -> Socialist Labour Party (Scargill's lot)-> Party Of Women (Posie Parker & co) -> Reform. I think that's as many affiliations as Lee Anderson.
I have not logged in for 2 days because I was told I could not be connected. Tried again this morning but used vf,politicalbetting.com instead of my usual. After I was checked as a human here I am. My task today - waiting in for a gas engineer to service my boiler. Told he would come between 8.0 am and 12.0 pm (is that midnight or noon?)
Comments
Glastonbury seems like a parade of twats.
I think Hunt would be an asset in the Shadow COTE role to underline the point. The Tories need all their big players in the squad just now. I actually don't think in theory that Braverman would be a bad addition either, though I am not sure she can be trusted with hubby in Reform.
On a sort of related note, if we need to raise taxes, why don't we raise them on remittances? Trump has done this with some success. With a far higher percentage of immigrants in the working population, a great deal of money gets sent overseas, reducing the multiplier effect within the domestic economy. Tax it.
Possibly the non-twats recognise the brevity afforded to them between songs, with audiences afforded only the dumb unary response of cheering or staying schtum, isn't really the best format for discussion of complex topics.
Which I don't really endorse or oppose as I don't see the harm in the lobby approach but it is not a big deal, and would at least serve some kind of purpose in making things much faster, unlike adjusting terminology.
There's just too much procedure involved in any legislative process, necessarily so, to referring to things differently making a difference.
Ultimately, sustainable growth outside the City is going to depend on median earners and medium sized businesses. The government should be focused on that part of the distribution, even if they iron out some of the weird tax blips that affect the very highest earners.
I agree it should be removed, as should all cliff edges*, but the people I know in that position generally work hard because they want to achieve something, they don't calculate how much each extra hour earns them. That was certainly true for me when I was in that position.
(*The cliff edge' whose removal would benefit the country most is the one that costs low-paid families 83p on every extra £ they earn - but it's not an easy one to address.)
https://x.com/duncanrobinson/status/1905145519397044570
As I said, any tax cliff-edge is wrong but removing this one would make eff-all difference to the economy as a whole.
Not too many 'tax evaders' to investigate.
A term like 'proposed law' is imprecise. Lots of binding regulation and law is not in Acts of Parliament. The word 'Bill' is precise.
And it's endless. 'speaker', 'leader of the house', 'shadow minister', 'minister of state', 'winding up' and a million other terms - they can all be replaced to the annoyance of those who care, and failing to inform those who don't.
Is it time to declare the festival defunct ?
Tbh, there are plenty of reasons why you might stop working 37 hours once you're on about £50k and you're on the housing ladder. Personally, I'm one promotion away from dropping to 4 days a week because I feel more constrained by time, not cash. I'm not super driven, just want to have fun and drink decent coffee and wine.
If kids come along, it's even more obvious a decision. What's frustrating is I can get most of my work done in 2-3 days. Shouldn't really take a pay cut when dropping hours.
The assessment from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency, may complicate Republican efforts to pass President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming days.
It narrowly cleared a preliminary vote Saturday. Party leaders scrambled to win over lawmakers concerned about debt and the bill's healthcare cuts, among other issues.
One critic, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, announced on Sunday he would not seek reelection after voting against the president's signature legislation.
Democratic lawmakers have led criticism of the bill. The CBO numbers calculate $1tn in cuts to healthcare funding if the bill passes.
The latest version of the bill was advanced in a 51-49 Senate vote on Saturday night. Two Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the move.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2verel4nlo
Cricket is the closest evocation of the old England I can come up with, certainly when it’s a village match and beers after.
The Summer game, on wistful days, bears all the glories of Olde England
I cannot wait for summer sport and the sound of leather on willow as Sue Barker runs into a tree
It will be a disaster for the US going forward.
Misses quite a few things I'd have pointed at as key works, but also introduced me to quite a few I'd never heard of.
But I'm all in favour of a more straightforward tax/benefit/perk line. The UK rules and laws would make a lawyer in a Kafka-esque Byzantine play confused. And, now that I type that out, I realise - would also make them more wealthy.
The same cannot be said of any of the output of Adrian Chiles.
Is it not time to declare Adrian Chiles defunct? Safety first...
Yes, i find cricket more like a religious and cultural artefact than a spott. I personally find it incredibly dull to watch, but enjoyed playing it at school. Chaq'un a son gout and all that, though, and better to let a thousand flowers bloom.
https://x.com/wsj/status/1938989446252073184
Mon Jun 30 01:12:28 BST 2025
$ openssl s_client -connect www.politicalbetting.com:443 < /dev/null 2>&1 |head
depth=2 C = US, ST = New Jersey, L = Jersey City, O = The USERTRUST Network, CN = USERTrust RSA Certification Authority
verify return:1
depth=1 C = GB, ST = Greater Manchester, L = Salford, O = Sectigo Limited, CN = Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA
verify return:1
depth=0 CN = *.politicalbetting.com
verify error:num=10:certificate has expired
notAfter=Mar 3 23:59:59 2025 GMT
verify return:1
depth=0 CN = *.politicalbetting.com
notAfter=Mar 3 23:59:59 2025 GMT
...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/29/alarm-mounting-debts-starmer-about-turn-on-welfare/ (£££)
Sustainable growth depending on median earners and median businesses sounds nice and fair, but it's not especially true, even if they are the mode in number.
Fundamentally, growth is driven by wealth creators and a economic environment that rewards success. We have two quasi-socialist policies that are starting to be venerated: one, in the public sector, is the PM salary cap - meaning they can no longer pay market rates to hire the best people in major public sector bodies - and, two, the 100k cliff edge from 2009 (62k in today's prices) means your Jeff Bezos and can be taxed until the pips squeak.
Both are making us poorer.
One thing I note, is Mini Trump coming to Nottinghamshire?
Two things here, where the Reform UK Council Leader is afaics violating the Notts CC Constitution and reducing scrutiny:
1 - He is restricting the ability of Opposition Councillors to ask questions in public meetings. In the Constitution they get a submitted question, and a supplementary.
2 - This is important amongst other things because, as we remarked on Election night, Notts has a sharp NNW/SSE divide between RefUK and everyone else.
He could change it by making a proposal for amendment under normal procedure and rules, making his argument and winning the vote in full council, but he hasn't. He should know this, as he has a staff of senior officers to advise him.
From here I can't whether this is due to the Klutz Collective nature RefUK, or if like Trump they think they are above the normal rules.
One to watch.
Report: https://westbridgfordwire.com/fears-some-nottinghamshire-county-council-meetings-could-become-undemocratic/
If you're in office for a decade or longer, you should be planning for, and prepared for, a recession to happen in that window.
The big problem in that graph is not the steps, which were unavoidable, its what preceded the first one.
In 2002 we were in an extremely healthy position. Budget surplus and growth so debt to GDP was falling significantly. Had that continued for 5 more years then when the financial crisis hit we'd not only have gone in with lower debt, but more importantly gone in with a healthy surplus. So our countercyclical spending wouldn't have hurt so much.
In 2020 by comparison we went in not with a budget surplus, but with at least with debt to GDP falling instead of rising. Much healthier position.
As a result of being healthier going in, we came out without as much of a rise overall.
If you keep breaking the rules, sooner or later, you don't have anyone to play with.
The recognition of this will be when the zuS markets hap downwards, rather than just drifting down as at present. I thing there is a decent chance it could happen this year.
I've met loads more who change behaviour because of the 83% cliff edge. I've been literally spat at, more than once, because the job I was offering I wouldn't pay cash in hand for so they wouldn't take it due to that cliff edge.
We need to eliminate all the cliff edges in our tax system.
You might want it to be true that people decide to work hard regardless of taxation rates. But that's not how the real-world works.
Sir K returning to the proposals he has backed down on for adjusting regulation of Private Equity is part of that. I think another part is around the Online Services Tax, and the ability of companies not based here to operate businesses here effectively outside the system.
Even the significantly increased US ownership of companies on our stock exchange needs a look at, and a way of tipping the trends the other way.
I saw a quote last week, saying that the biggest issue around new companies seeking to grow to international majors in the UK is availability of finance.
NEW THREAD
Reform's Winsford borough councillor Mandy Clare who equates the 🏳️🌈 flag to child abuse was today escorted from Winsford Pride, resisted, and ended up arrested and in the back of a police van following intimidation and attacks on drag acts. Video src:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1236025951259547
https://x.com/BNHWalker/status/1939004101607501954
She was protesting at a Pride day, and caused enough trouble that she ended up getting herself arrested. In those circs, people with a public position just leave when the coppers tell them to go. I wonder what the Daily T podcast will say about this, or if we will make a JD Vance speech as a martyr?
A peripatetic history - since 2019 she has gone Labour -> Socialist Labour Party (Scargill's lot)-> Party Of Women (Posie Parker & co) -> Reform. I think that's as many affiliations as Lee Anderson.
And I agree that the the proportion of all income tax that is paid by the top 5% is absolutely ridiculous. But given the top rate of tax is only 45%, and 40% from £50k to £125k, that's a function of enormous income inequality, not punitive tax rates.
And it's not about being "nice and fair". 90% of the UK population earn less than £70k - if you want to generate meaningful growth, you're going to have to bring along some of them as well simply by weight of numbers. We see exactly this attitude around London, which the economy is now so reliant on but also why we've generated such massive regional inequalities.
Sorry to hear your experience. It doesn't sound like the type of employee you'd want in any event.
If your wider point if that meaningful growth must mean that a rising tide lifts all boats then, yes, I agree - that's why I'm interested in maximising macroeconomic growth and tax revenue because it will allow us to invest more in education, skills, infrastructure and science and industry around the country.
The difference this year has been the BBC’s attitude, promoting rather than ignoring those espousing extremist politics as part of their act.