This seems a reasonable proposition. What are the arguments against ?
Today, I've written the foreword to a new @LabourTogether & @BritishProgress report asking the question - how can we get Heathrow expansion off the ground rapidly & democratically?
He makes the point that despite the government committing to major national projects like Sizewell, or Heathrow, they can then be tied up in planning, and judicial reviews, for at least half a decade, often longer.
Parliament could cut that time to a year simply by voting on a bill in favour of a particular project. Is there any good reason that should not happen ?
As I understand it, that's how the Victorian Railway and Canal Bills worked - in those days the courts challenging Parliament was pretty rare, and the courts said that an Act of Parliament was The Law.
So it was pretty much primary legislation. Nearly all the bunfights and deals were done before the Acts passed.
These days, it would be taken as a massive Attack On Legal Freedom. The Enquiry Industrial Complex is worth many billions.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
I suspect you are correct about the voters of Basildon not particularly worrying about it, as most of the Essex people I know were ordering W**kerTankers on the basis of the money they were extracting. It just goes to show what a shitshow the whole COVID lockdown was in relation to the monies being hosed at it.
As you are in Essex, perhaps you know a few too.
Now the Conservatives, especially those who had their noses in the trough, are preaching fiscal prudence. Politicians eh!
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
I suspect you are correct about the voters of Basildon not particularly worrying about it, as most of the Essex people I know were ordering W**kerTankers on the basis of the money they were extracting. It just goes to show what a shitshow the whole COVID lockdown was in relation to the monies being hosed at it.
As you are in Essex, perhaps you know a few too.
Now the Conservatives, especially those who had their noses in the trough, are preaching fiscal prudence. Politicians eh!
My long experience of Basildon is that people tend to be opposed to law-breaking except when they are doing it.
This seems a reasonable proposition. What are the arguments against ?
Today, I've written the foreword to a new @LabourTogether & @BritishProgress report asking the question - how can we get Heathrow expansion off the ground rapidly & democratically?
He makes the point that despite the government committing to major national projects like Sizewell, or Heathrow, they can then be tied up in planning, and judicial reviews, for at least half a decade, often longer.
Parliament could cut that time to a year simply by voting on a bill in favour of a particular project. Is there any good reason that should not happen ?
As I understand it, that's how the Victorian Railway and Canal Bills worked - in those days the courts challenging Parliament was pretty rare, and the courts said that an Act of Parliament was The Law.
So it was pretty much primary legislation. Nearly all the bunfights and deals were done before the Acts passed.
These days, it would be taken as a massive Attack On Legal Freedom. The Enquiry Industrial Complex is worth many billions.
That is exactly its appeal, and how it should be sold.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
I understand the complexity, all changes that are worth doing are generally complex.
I'm not saying merge them without anyone being worse off though, I'm saying merge them so that working people are no worse off, if not better off.
Instead of having a base rate of 20% and NI of 8% you could have a base rate of 28% and working people would be no worse off . . . or have a base rate of eg 27% and have a real terms tax cut for working people while being approximately revenue neutral.
@eek is talking about the Process of having NI. Lots of process to change - lots of jobs will go as a result of this. Whole swathes out accounting software.
Changing to a base rate of 27.9% and an NI rate of 0.1% would be fairly trivial, OTOH
Actually very little would go based on the structure of the software. Problem is all changes take time and there are already a whole set of making tax digital in progress which is a blocker on when the next set of changes could be implemented
Are people really building software that can't handle changes in tax rates?
Why not?
Happy user of BookCooker 3.1? Purchase BookCooker 3.2 with exciting new features, such as updated tax rates!
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
£400k a year less than half Lineker's £1 million a year still
Linekers single job has now become a 3 person job*...I doubt they are saving much if any money, as Chapman, Logan and Cates are established presenters so I doubt they are doing it for buttons.
Rooney is hired as a pundit.
* that isn't quite true as I believe they will do Saturday and Sunday, rather than just Saturday.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
I think the Premier league contract means the Premier League has a say in who presents - which means that the pay is probably way out of line of other shows.
On the other hand the BBC probably pay less for the rights than the Premier League would have previously got from other broadcasters. This time round I don't think that's the case though as over the past 18 months advertising based TV has seen their income start to fall drastically.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Since when has complete lack of background knowledge stopped HYUFD posting on a topic?
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
£400k a year less than half Lineker's £1 million a year still
There is absolutely zero justification to be paying someone £400k per year of licence fee money to be a pundit on a football highlights show.
Even if he was the second coming of Des Lynam, Ian St John, Graeme Souness, Roy Keane, and Glenn Hoddle rolled into one charismatic insightful person there is seriously no good justification for an hour long show each week, and not even every week in this case.
Tax? Well if we're not imposing a tax on all foreigners living abroad or a tax on thingy (you know, THNGY!!!) then we need to go after the daddy - Council Tax.
This one is fairly straight forward - what we have now is utterly absurd. Valuations decades into the past with no band that covers the actual values of so many houses? Madness.
Arguing that we must keep the status quo is cowardice. People don't like or understand council tax anyway, so replacing it shouldn't be that controversial.
Two principles: we need to fund local government effectively, and property is far harder to move out of tax than cash or other assets. So a Land Value Tax to replace Council Tax. Based on actual land value today, not eons ago. Some places are quite expensive, others less so. Won't be as popular in Godalming as is will be in Grimsby.
That just lets central government off the hook.
If they mandate a service they should ensure it is properly funded.
Council tax should just be for local services and decisions that the council is democratically accountable for.
Governments mandate lots of things without funding them. For example: if you sell food, you are mandated to follow certain food safety requirements, but you aren't funded to do that.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
I understand the complexity, all changes that are worth doing are generally complex.
I'm not saying merge them without anyone being worse off though, I'm saying merge them so that working people are no worse off, if not better off.
Instead of having a base rate of 20% and NI of 8% you could have a base rate of 28% and working people would be no worse off . . . or have a base rate of eg 27% and have a real terms tax cut for working people while being approximately revenue neutral.
@eek is talking about the Process of having NI. Lots of process to change - lots of jobs will go as a result of this. Whole swathes out accounting software.
Changing to a base rate of 27.9% and an NI rate of 0.1% would be fairly trivial, OTOH
Actually very little would go based on the structure of the software. Problem is all changes take time and there are already a whole set of making tax digital in progress which is a blocker on when the next set of changes could be implemented
Are people really building software that can't handle changes in tax rates?
Why not?
Happy user of BookCooker 3.1? Purchase BookCooker 3.2 with exciting new features, such as updated tax rates!
All the main accountancy packages are subscription services these days, where everyone is always on the newest version.
It's a racket in terms of cost, but cartel-like the providers have all realised it's the route to making lots of money...
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
Sorry, check your figures. Reform 3rd in one Basildon seat, 1600 or so behind the winning Tory. McMurdock won his seat by a mere 98 or so.
Tax? Well if we're not imposing a tax on all foreigners living abroad or a tax on thingy (you know, THNGY!!!) then we need to go after the daddy - Council Tax.
This one is fairly straight forward - what we have now is utterly absurd. Valuations decades into the past with no band that covers the actual values of so many houses? Madness.
Arguing that we must keep the status quo is cowardice. People don't like or understand council tax anyway, so replacing it shouldn't be that controversial.
Two principles: we need to fund local government effectively, and property is far harder to move out of tax than cash or other assets. So a Land Value Tax to replace Council Tax. Based on actual land value today, not eons ago. Some places are quite expensive, others less so. Won't be as popular in Godalming as is will be in Grimsby.
That just lets central government off the hook.
If they mandate a service they should ensure it is properly funded.
Council tax should just be for local services and decisions that the council is democratically accountable for.
Governments mandate lots of things without funding them. For example: if you sell food, you are mandated to follow certain food safety requirements, but you aren't funded to do that.
No, that's standards, not mandate.
You can choose whether to sell food or not, so that's moot.
Councils can't choose not to provide SEND, Care etc
The state mandates SEND, Care etc so it should fund it, not mandate that Councils fund what the Council didn't determine.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
£400k a year less than half Lineker's £1 million a year still
There is absolutely zero justification to be paying someone £400k per year of licence fee money to be a pundit on a football highlights show.
Even if he was the second coming of Des Lynam, Ian St John, Graeme Souness, Roy Keane, and Glenn Hoddle rolled into one charismatic insightful person there is seriously no good justification for an hour long show each week, and not even every week in this case.
There are people who write for the Athletic who are able to convey tactical insights at a far greater level and would do it for £10k's a year.
Last time I flew EasyShite, I did think the staff had become way more aggressive in their demands that the bag fitted in their little stand. Previously I always found EasyShite were fairly relaxed in that if you had a rucksack that wasn't taking the piss they didn't even inquire.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
£400k a year less than half Lineker's £1 million a year still
There is absolutely zero justification to be paying someone £400k per year of licence fee money to be a pundit on a football highlights show.
Even if he was the second coming of Des Lynam, Ian St John, Graeme Souness, Roy Keane, and Glenn Hoddle rolled into one charismatic insightful person there is seriously no good justification for an hour long show each week, and not even every week in this case.
There are people who write for the Athletic who are able to convey tactical insights at a far greater level and would do it for £10k's a year.
I don't mind the likes of Rooney as pundits, but not at that money and not just them. Where it gets really bad is at the World Cup when pundits have something to say about an Ecuadorian who they've seen play for Brighton but haven't got a clue about the coach or the rest of the team. That's when you want the likes of Tim Vickery in the line-up.
The Telegraph is concerned by the rising threat posed by Islamist prisoners, and so is everyone's favourite social media star:-
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: “Extremists and career criminals now operate with near impunity inside some of this country’s highest-security prisons.
“That is a complete failure of leadership – and a dangerous abdication of one of the state’s core duties: maintaining order behind bars.
“When Islamist terrorists and organised crime figures are left to forge alliances, we aren’t just witnessing a security lapse – we’re watching a national threat incubate in plain sight. This cannot be allowed to continue.”
There is also a helpful graph to demonstrate this rising threat but can anyone spot an anomaly the Telegraph and Rob J have both missed?
There are only 500 Jewish prisoners though, so a few random incidents could have bumped those numbers up.
The graph says 23.1 assaults per 100 prisoners. If there are 500 Jewish prisoners, then that should be 115.5 assaults. Let's call it 115. This is probably Poisson distributed, so on that basis, we can calculate a 95% confidence interval of 95-138 events. That translates back to 19.0-27.6 assaults per 100 prisoners. The lower end of that confidence interval is still higher than the figure reported for Muslim prisoners, but the confidence intervals for the two groups probably overlap.
Good stuff. I'd still be interested to know how many of the assaults by Jewish inmates were committed by the most violent ten individuals, and how that distribution compared to the other categories.
Assuming the presented figures are for a single year, it would also be interesting to look at the variation over the last five years.
If the assaults are conducted by a small number of the most violent individuals, then you probably have an overdispersed Poisson distribution and the confidence intervals would be larger. If one had the full dataset, there are all sorts of analyses one could do. It remains odd that the Telegraph article does not mention that it is not Muslim prisoners who have recorded the highest proportion of assaults.
Telegraph readers believe all Muslims are evil, so seeing Muslim prisoners near the top doesn't need any explanation for them. But Jewish prisoners being at the top seems odd, so we reach for other explanations: a small sample, a statistical anomaly.
That's wrong. We should consider alternate possible explanations for all groups. I'd guess that there's an urban/rural thing going on. Muslims and Jews are concentrated in cities and maybe city prisons are rougher generally.
That's very much your prejudice, right there. Any evidence for that assertion? I'm intrigued by the idea of city prisons. If I commit a crime in Frome do I go to a nice artisan dominated country prison?
That's a rather trite interpretation. Prisons in different parts of the country will have different intakes, who committed different crimes, with different links to the local community. They will have different security levels.
I put that out merely as a possible suggestion. I don't have access to the requisite data. My point is that there could be a range of different confounding factors. The raw data is interesting, but we should be careful to conclude too much from it without further analysis.
As for Telegraph readers, you're right, they might be a lovely bunch. I am merely judging by what Telegraph journalists write.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
£400k a year less than half Lineker's £1 million a year still
There is absolutely zero justification to be paying someone £400k per year of licence fee money to be a pundit on a football highlights show.
Even if he was the second coming of Des Lynam, Ian St John, Graeme Souness, Roy Keane, and Glenn Hoddle rolled into one charismatic insightful person there is seriously no good justification for an hour long show each week, and not even every week in this case.
There are people who write for the Athletic who are able to convey tactical insights at a far greater level and would do it for £10k's a year.
I don't mind the likes of Rooney as pundits, but not at that money and not just them. Where it gets really bad is at the World Cup when pundits have something to say about an Ecuadorian who they've seen play for Brighton but haven't got a clue about the coach or the rest of the team. That's when you want the likes of Tim Vickery in the line-up.
Tim Vickery has been criminally unused by the BBC. They found an absolute gem in that bloke years and years ago and has rarely used him for more than the talk about South American football on at something like 3am on R5.
I know he lives in Brazil and has a family, but still.
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The riots over the poll tax were because we were moving from a property tax to a poll tax. That, if anything, suggests a property tax would be welcomed!
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
Sorry, check your figures. Reform 3rd in one Basildon seat, 1600 or so behind the winning Tory. McMurdock won his seat by a mere 98 or so.
So Reform won Basildon last year, as I said. Most of the other Basildon and Bilericay seat is in the old Billericay seat whereas most of new town Basildon is in McMurdock's seat
The Telegraph is concerned by the rising threat posed by Islamist prisoners, and so is everyone's favourite social media star:-
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: “Extremists and career criminals now operate with near impunity inside some of this country’s highest-security prisons.
“That is a complete failure of leadership – and a dangerous abdication of one of the state’s core duties: maintaining order behind bars.
“When Islamist terrorists and organised crime figures are left to forge alliances, we aren’t just witnessing a security lapse – we’re watching a national threat incubate in plain sight. This cannot be allowed to continue.”
There is also a helpful graph to demonstrate this rising threat but can anyone spot an anomaly the Telegraph and Rob J have both missed?
There are only 500 Jewish prisoners though, so a few random incidents could have bumped those numbers up.
The graph says 23.1 assaults per 100 prisoners. If there are 500 Jewish prisoners, then that should be 115.5 assaults. Let's call it 115. This is probably Poisson distributed, so on that basis, we can calculate a 95% confidence interval of 95-138 events. That translates back to 19.0-27.6 assaults per 100 prisoners. The lower end of that confidence interval is still higher than the figure reported for Muslim prisoners, but the confidence intervals for the two groups probably overlap.
Good stuff. I'd still be interested to know how many of the assaults by Jewish inmates were committed by the most violent ten individuals, and how that distribution compared to the other categories.
Assuming the presented figures are for a single year, it would also be interesting to look at the variation over the last five years.
If the assaults are conducted by a small number of the most violent individuals, then you probably have an overdispersed Poisson distribution and the confidence intervals would be larger. If one had the full dataset, there are all sorts of analyses one could do. It remains odd that the Telegraph article does not mention that it is not Muslim prisoners who have recorded the highest proportion of assaults.
Telegraph readers believe all Muslims are evil, so seeing Muslim prisoners near the top doesn't need any explanation for them. But Jewish prisoners being at the top seems odd, so we reach for other explanations: a small sample, a statistical anomaly.
That's wrong. We should consider alternate possible explanations for all groups. I'd guess that there's an urban/rural thing going on. Muslims and Jews are concentrated in cities and maybe city prisons are rougher generally.
That's very much your prejudice, right there. Any evidence for that assertion? I'm intrigued by the idea of city prisons. If I commit a crime in Frome do I go to a nice artisan dominated country prison?
That's a rather trite interpretation. Prisons in different parts of the country will have different intakes, who committed different crimes, with different links to the local community. They will have different security levels.
I put that out merely as a possible suggestion. I don't have access to the requisite data. My point is that there could be a range of different confounding factors. The raw data is interesting, but we should be careful to conclude too much from it without further analysis.
As for Telegraph readers, you're right, they might be a lovely bunch. I am merely judging by what Telegraph journalists write.
Nowadays most Telegraph 'journalists' (sic) are barely out of teenage
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The riots over the poll tax were because we were moving from a property tax to a poll tax. That, if anything, suggests a property tax would be welcomed!
The current Council Tax (paid to Central Government in the main) is a typical British compromise/fudge. It's 50% property value and 50% people (assumes 2 residents). So if you are a single occupier, the 25% discount kicks in.
You could keep the same system/legislation but change the proportions. No need to throw out all that software they use.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Since when has complete lack of background knowledge stopped HYUFD posting on a topic?
I have even claimed JSA for a short period and only was able to do so as a result of NI contributions made
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The riots over the poll tax were because we were moving from a property tax to a poll tax. That, if anything, suggests a property tax would be welcomed!
The current Council Tax (paid to Central Government in the main) is a typical British compromise/fudge. It's 50% property value and 50% people (assumes 2 residents). So if you are a single occupier, the 25% discount kicks in.
You could keep the same system/legislation but change the proportions. No need to throw out all that software they use.
It's more on property than people. 3, 4, 5, 6+ residents is treated the same as 2.
I remain unclear why tlg86 thinks a property tax would be so unpopular compared to our current property tax.
Last time I flew EasyShite, I did think the staff had become way more aggressive in their demands that the bag fitted in their little stand. Previously I always found EasyShite were fairly relaxed in that if you had a rucksack that wasn't taking the piss they didn't even inquire.
A £1.20 incentive when EasyJet charges £48 for an oversized bag isn't exactly much of an incentive - you are really only going to go for the people who are awkward or have obviously oversized bags.
Mind you I don't flew Ryanair or EasyJet unless I absolutely have to - it's not worth the grieve..
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Since when has complete lack of background knowledge stopped HYUFD posting on a topic?
Indeed, while I'm a touch rusty since its a few years since I've done this, this is something I used to do for a living. I used to run the accounts and payroll for my business for years and I had part time employees who were making "contributions" and those "contributions" totalled 0 pounds and 0 pence.
HYUFD falls for plenty of myths. Call it a "contribution" of 0 pounds and 0 pence and he thinks contributions are actually being made. Its a myth though, and its our existing system.
Could you confirm my calculations are correct that someone consistently earning £150 a week would be entitled to "contributory" new-style JSA if they lose their job?
And could you confirm their "contributions" would have been the grand sum of 0 pounds and 0 pence?
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The ideal would be for the house owners to be responsible for paying the tax - then you would have a rather limited number of landlords complaining while the average tenant sat by saying not our problem..
And I can see a lot of 60-80 years old quietly complaining but they definitely wouldn't be in a position to riot..
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Since when has complete lack of background knowledge stopped HYUFD posting on a topic?
I have even claimed JSA for a short period and only was able to do so as a result of NI contributions made
And if those contributions had totalled zero pounds and zero pence you would have still been entitled to it.
Actually making a contribution, even a single penny, is not actually required.
Last time I flew EasyShite, I did think the staff had become way more aggressive in their demands that the bag fitted in their little stand. Previously I always found EasyShite were fairly relaxed in that if you had a rucksack that wasn't taking the piss they didn't even inquire.
A £1.20 incentive when EasyJet charges £48 for an oversized bag isn't exactly much of an incentive - you are really only going to go for the people who are awkward or have obviously oversized bags.
Mind you I don't flew Ryanair or EasyJet unless I absolutely have to - it's not worth the grieve..
I don't know, catch 10 people per flight and it starts to add up to some proper money per day given I doubt they are on much to begin with. I imagine there is also pressure applied that this is part of your job, do it right and look there is a bonus as well.
As I say I found they way more aggressive with the checks than previously, also more pressured on the upsell on you will have to put that under your seat as you aren't "allowed" to put them in the overhead bins until you pay the £48.
The reality of course is the cabin crew will never really stop you putting your bag into the overhead bins as they have no idea who has paid what.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The ideal would be for the house owners to be responsible for paying the tax - then you would have a rather limited number of landlords complaining while the average tenant sat by saying not our problem..
And I can see a lot of 60-80 years old quietly complaining but they definitely wouldn't be in a position to riot..
Surely landlords would just pass the cost on in rent?
The trouble with these lab grown pols is that when they’re out in the wild they often appear to be dicks. Not sure that he thought through the ‘sea is warming up’ zinger.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Since when has complete lack of background knowledge stopped HYUFD posting on a topic?
Indeed, while I'm a touch rusty since its a few years since I've done this, this is something I used to do for a living. I used to run the accounts and payroll for my business for years and I had part time employees who were making "contributions" and those "contributions" totalled 0 pounds and 0 pence.
HYUFD falls for plenty of myths. Call it a "contribution" of 0 pounds and 0 pence and he thinks contributions are actually being made. Its a myth though, and its our existing system.
Could you confirm my calculations are correct that someone consistently earning £150 a week would be entitled to "contributory" new-style JSA if they lose their job?
And could you confirm their "contributions" would have been the grand sum of 0 pounds and 0 pence?
After the Employer NI changes I believe it's now 1 job with which you earn at least £125 a week to qualify for your pension and hence contributory JSA. As you say until you earn £242 a week the employee will be seeing no Employee Ni deducted.
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The ideal would be for the house owners to be responsible for paying the tax - then you would have a rather limited number of landlords complaining while the average tenant sat by saying not our problem..
And I can see a lot of 60-80 years old quietly complaining but they definitely wouldn't be in a position to riot..
Surely landlords would just pass the cost on in rent?
They can attempt to pass on the cost but I suspect they wouldn't be able to pass all of the cost back to the tenant..
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The ideal would be for the house owners to be responsible for paying the tax - then you would have a rather limited number of landlords complaining while the average tenant sat by saying not our problem..
And I can see a lot of 60-80 years old quietly complaining but they definitely wouldn't be in a position to riot..
Surely landlords would just pass the cost on in rent?
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
So National Insurance of £0.01 per annum will be a contribution?
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
So National Insurance of £0.01 per annum will be a contribution?
Literally, yes. A miniscule one that doesn't cover the costs, but it literally is one.
However under our current system National Insurance of £0.00 per annum is a "contribution".
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Since when has complete lack of background knowledge stopped HYUFD posting on a topic?
I have even claimed JSA for a short period and only was able to do so as a result of NI contributions made
And if those contributions had totalled zero pounds and zero pence you would have still been entitled to it.
Actually making a contribution, even a single penny, is not actually required.
Having been an employee IS a requirement, usually via class 1 NI contributions having been paid for at least 2 or 3 years even if in a few cases NI credits can count.
If you were not working as an employee you cannot claim JSA
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
So National Insurance of £0.01 per annum will be a contribution?
Literally, yes. A miniscule one that doesn't cover the costs, but it literally is one.
However under our current system National Insurance of £0.00 per annum is a "contribution".
Contributions are a myth.
Technically the Employer NI is acting as the contribution here and it's been the case for decades that the employer NI threshold was the point where pension and JSA contributions were triggered. but the employee payslip would as you say show £0 deductions for employee NI until they earn £242 a week.
The trouble with these lab grown pols is that when they’re out in the wild they often appear to be dicks. Not sure that he thought through the ‘sea is warming up’ zinger.
Loving the idea of a property tax. The riots would make the poll tax look like a picnic.
The ideal would be for the house owners to be responsible for paying the tax - then you would have a rather limited number of landlords complaining while the average tenant sat by saying not our problem..
And I can see a lot of 60-80 years old quietly complaining but they definitely wouldn't be in a position to riot..
Surely landlords would just pass the cost on in rent?
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Since when has complete lack of background knowledge stopped HYUFD posting on a topic?
I have even claimed JSA for a short period and only was able to do so as a result of NI contributions made
And if those contributions had totalled zero pounds and zero pence you would have still been entitled to it.
Actually making a contribution, even a single penny, is not actually required.
Having been an employee IS a requirement, usually via class 1 NI contributions having been paid for at least 2 or 3 years even if in a few cases NI credits can count.
If you were not working as an employee you cannot claim JSA
Indeed, being an employee is required, actually making a contribution is not. Actually having a deduction from payroll is not.
Class 1 NI Contributions of £0.00 - do they count?
We could merge NI and Income Tax while keeping NI at £0.00 and keeping contributory provisions based on nil rates like we already have today.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare.
The vast majority of state pensioners will also have made NI contributions to claim it when working
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare
So you believe people whose NI was £0.00 in the past two years would be denied JSA?
You are wrong.
I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.
So the critics need to suggest solutions instead of being like Labour MPs who are being the problem rather than the solution.
My top three tax increases would be:
1. Merge income tax and national insurance (thereby increasing tax on pensioner income). 2. Restrict tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate (given how wealthy some pensioners are it's arguable that higher rate taxpayers are saving too much for their retirement). 3. Replace council tax and stamp duty with a proportional property tax, land value tax, or similar tax on property wealth.
I'm sure all of these would provoke howls of outrage to make the kerfuffle over WFA look like the newest political ripple, but fixing the situation isn't going to be done without, as the politicians like to say, hard choices. And on spending, too.
That last one is a non-starter for Labour given how badly Londoners would lose out.
There are no tax rises that are not a non starter for somebody. Labour's support base means that they can't attack the public sector, can't attack welfare and can't attack the middle class and can't attack London. Dubai and Monaco plus the special interests of media owners means they can't attack the very rich, and you can't attack the very poor because you can't tax a lack of income or assets.
And you can't do massive 'start again' structural changes - which is what we need - because you can't rebuild your plane in the middle of a stormy crossing of the Atlantic.
Apart from all that it's easy.
A guess: The best thing to do would be at the next budget to announce so many measures, hundreds of them, including major tax rises, that you both get all the criticism over in one go, and tell ordinary people that the government actually has a plan and some courage. If you really need an extra £100billion, and you come under existential fire for a few billion, you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
Except this issue was obvious a year ago and many of the changes required will take 2-4 years to implement so will start to impact people just as the next election arrives
How lucky we have a government that can take advantage of its big majority then to make bold choices.
(In addition to @algarkirk comment “we’re all in it together” - spreading the pain across every interest group - is the only way to make this work)
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare.
The vast majority of state pensioners will also have made NI contributions to claim it when working
And you've missed the fundamental point
To qualify for JSA you need to earn £125 a week.
For employee NI to appear as a deduction on a payslip you need to earn £242 a week.
Hence if you earn £125-241.99 a week you will qualify for a pension and for JSA but won't have contributed a penny from your pay towards it.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
So National Insurance of £0.01 per annum will be a contribution?
Literally, yes. A miniscule one that doesn't cover the costs, but it literally is one.
However under our current system National Insurance of £0.00 per annum is a "contribution".
Contributions are a myth.
Technically the Employer NI is acting as the contribution here and it's been the case for decades that the employer NI threshold was the point where pension and JSA contributions were triggered. but the employee payslip would as you say show £0 deductions for employee NI until they earn £242 a week.
I don't think so, in the past Employer Contributions kicked in at the Secondary Threshold, while the Employee got Contributions at the Lower Earnings Limit and they were not aligned.
Previously I believe someone earning £150 per week would be above the LEL so making "contributions" but below the secondary threshold (so no employer deduction) and below the primary threshold (so no employee deduction either).
Labour's reforms have lowered the secondary threshold to below the LEL, but that wasn't the case previously.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare
So you believe people whose NI was £0.00 in the past two years would be denied JSA?
You are wrong.
I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.
If they had not worked as an employee they would be denied JSA and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions.
You don't want contributory welfare, even to the limited extend we have it now for most JSA and state pension claimants via NI, hence you want to scrap it.
I am sure a place can be found for you in Corbyn and Sultana's new party where you can scream for everlasting dependency culture and non contributory welfare to your hearts content!
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare
So you believe people whose NI was £0.00 in the past two years would be denied JSA?
You are wrong.
I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.
If they had not worked as an employee they would be denied JSA and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions.
You don't want contributory welfare, even to the limited extend we have it now for most JSA and state pension claimants via NI, hence you want to scrap it.
I am sure a place can be found for you in Corbyn and Sultana's new party where you can scream for everlasting dependency culture and non contributory welfare to your hearts content!
If they have worked as an employee and had NI deductions of £0.00 per annum they're still entitled to the JSA and pension.
I have no desire to scrap any contribution systems that actually exists, but what part of we do not have any contributory welfare are you too thick to understand?
You could merge income tax and NI rates, set all NI tax rates to nil and keep all the "contributions" requirements that we have today.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
I hope he’s a better pundit than he is manger, useless twat he is.
Failing as a manager shouldn't preclude an ex-pro from being a pundit. Gary Neville is at his best, unsurprisingly, when talking about defending and right backs in particular. However, when they start dishing out criticism of managers, that's when I have a bit of an issue.
So what's the median weekly wage for part-time employees in 2024? Seems to be £263 so above the NI level. Not too sure where you are heading with this argument - unless the argument is the aim in itself.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
I hope he’s a better pundit than he is manger, useless twat he is.
Can someone please tell me what would be wrong with the following -
- A version of Britain's Got Talent - The prize is winning the job of presenting X on the BBC. For £250K, say. - This would be opening up the job to the entire country, find undiscovered talent etc. Rather than handing out jobs to chums.
So what's the median weekly wage for part-time employees in 2024? Seems to be £263 so above the NI level. Not too sure where you are heading with this argument - unless the argument is the aim in itself.
The Bulgarian National Archaeological Museum has a small but magnificent collection, especially pf the “Barbarian” Thracian period, which is basically Homer turned into bronze and gold
It is a peculiarly if poetically shaped building, until you realise it is the city’s oldest and noblest mosque, gutted of all religious connotations and entirely cleansed of Islam
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
I hope he’s a better pundit than he is manger, useless twat he is.
Can someone please tell me what would be wrong with the following -
- A version of Britain's Got Talent - The prize is winning the job of presenting X on the BBC. For £250K, say. - This would be opening up the job to the entire country, find undiscovered talent etc. Rather than handing out jobs to chums.
This is a pretty wild story. I'd be interested in the take of lawyers like @Cyclefree
TikTok and the "Dispensing Power" https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/165-tiktok-and-the-dispensing-power On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order that promised not to enforce the statute for 75 days (a period that could be renewed). But it was only after Attorney General Bondi sent letters to various U.S. tech companies some time later that full access to TikTok was restored—letters that, at least at the time, were not made public (or even leaked)...
Late last week, in response to FOIA requests, 21 of those letters were made public. The letters are worth reading in their entirety (in some cases, multiple letters to the same company sent at different times were included). But to summarize the highlights, across those letters, the Attorney General of the United States memorialized some variation of the following three conclusions:
Companies that continue to support the TikTok app are not, in fact, violating the TikTok statute; The TikTok statute is “properly read” to not “infringe upon . . . core Presidential national security and foreign affairs powers”; and The Department of Justice is “irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had” against the recipients of the letters for both previous and ongoing violations of the act....
..The “dispensing” power claimed by pre-18th-century English kings was the power to decide, on an ad hoc basis, which laws could and should be set aside in individual cases—to exempt the King’s favorites not just from the retrospective operation of criminal laws (for which after-the-fact pardons could have the same effect), but from the retrospective and prospective application of civil laws, as well. The idea was that the King could literally “dispense” with application of whichever laws he wanted, for whatever reasons he wanted, in whatever cases he wanted.
One of the centerpieces of the English Bill of Rights, adopted by Parliament in 1689 at the end of the Glorious Revolution (as part of a package of reforms that had both the purpose and effect of pushing England toward a constitutional monarchy), was the express abolition of the dispensing power. And when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Take Care Clause of Article II (requiring the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”) was largely understood as a repudiation of any dispensing authority. Indeed, the Supreme Court would reassert that understanding in 1838, noting that a “dispensing power” "has no countenance for its support in any part of the Constitution, and is asserting a principle which, if carried out in its results to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power entirely to control the legislation of Congress and paralyze the administration of justice"...
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare
So you believe people whose NI was £0.00 in the past two years would be denied JSA?
You are wrong.
I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.
If they had not worked as an employee they would be denied JSA and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions.
You don't want contributory welfare, even to the limited extend we have it now for most JSA and state pension claimants via NI, hence you want to scrap it.
I am sure a place can be found for you in Corbyn and Sultana's new party where you can scream for everlasting dependency culture and non contributory welfare to your hearts content!
If they have worked as an employee and had NI deductions of £0.00 per annum they're still entitled to the JSA and pension.
I have no desire to scrap any contribution systems that actually exists, but what part of we do not have any contributory welfare are you too thick to understand?
You could merge income tax and NI rates, set all NI tax rates to nil and keep all the "contributions" requirements that we have today.
You scrap NI, you end contributory welfare overnight even the small amount we do have.
JSA would cease to exist as no NI contributions would have been made for it and instead all unemployment claimants would just be on taxpayer funded UC without ever needing to have worked before and been an employee either. The state pension would also just be means tested pensions credit solely funded by tax too.
As I said, you are too leftwing even for Starmer, you belong in Corbyn's new party!
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
I hope he’s a better pundit than he is manger, useless twat he is.
Can someone please tell me what would be wrong with the following -
- A version of Britain's Got Talent - The prize is winning the job of presenting X on the BBC. For £250K, say. - This would be opening up the job to the entire country, find undiscovered talent etc. Rather than handing out jobs to chums.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare
So you believe people whose NI was £0.00 in the past two years would be denied JSA?
You are wrong.
I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.
If they had not worked as an employee they would be denied JSA and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions.
You don't want contributory welfare, even to the limited extend we have it now for most JSA and state pension claimants via NI, hence you want to scrap it.
I am sure a place can be found for you in Corbyn and Sultana's new party where you can scream for everlasting dependency culture and non contributory welfare to your hearts content!
If they have worked as an employee and had NI deductions of £0.00 per annum they're still entitled to the JSA and pension.
I have no desire to scrap any contribution systems that actually exists, but what part of we do not have any contributory welfare are you too thick to understand?
You could merge income tax and NI rates, set all NI tax rates to nil and keep all the "contributions" requirements that we have today.
You scrap NI, you end contributory welfare overnight even the small amount we do have.
JSA would cease to exist as no NI contributions would have been made for it and instead all unemployment claimants would just be on taxpayer funded UC without ever needing to have worked before and been an employee either. The state pension would also just be means tested pensions credit solely funded by tax too.
As I said, you are too leftwing even for Starmer, you belong in Corbyn's new party!
Um no it wouldn’t - the contribution would be based on paying (some) income tax.
But that’s irrelevant because both Bart and myself have pointed out that the point you start qualifying for JSA is well below the point that a worker starts paying any form of income based tax
TBF despite the '1 hour ago' timing on the BBC link, the BBC reported it fully yesterday, as I remember reading it.
Two points: it all happened a long way from London, and outside England which tends to make it a regional story; Cumbrian murders get very little wider coverage; and I have no idea if this is a 'total innocent stranger murder' story - which always has much more interest for the popular press, as despite impressions, they are rare.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds
Oh my god we’re so racist because we aren’t discussing murder of black people in the UK as much as (or should it be in proportion to population ratio) white people.
I’m not sure we discuss many murders unless they are particularly remarkable but I’m hoping you feel magnificent trying to turn a tragic event into some moral one-upmanship, I’m guessing it’s what her family would want.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
And the second and the third etc with all the business lockdowns? The amount given to businesses to keep them going won't be a big issue there, Basildon restaurant and newsagent and pub owners won't want HMRC nosing into how much they claimed either
Good news for those of us hoping that the BBC would stop spaffing crazy money on presenters after Gary Lineker left MOTD, the Standard are reporting the Beeb are going to spend the miserly sum of £800,000 for two years to hire the charisma vacuum, half man/half potato Wayne Rooney for his dazzling insight for MOtD.
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
I hope he’s a better pundit than he is manger, useless twat he is.
Can someone please tell me what would be wrong with the following -
- A version of Britain's Got Talent - The prize is winning the job of presenting X on the BBC. For £250K, say. - This would be opening up the job to the entire country, find undiscovered talent etc. Rather than handing out jobs to chums.
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
Is HYUFD seriously defending loan fraud, or saying that Reform voters will ? So much for the law and order reputation of the Tory party faithful.
Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.
Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement
So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off
One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -
Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.
Then we just get even more non contributory welfare than now, an absolute disaster when most OECD nations already fund unemployment benefits and healthcare far more by social insurance than we do
Pretty much all our welfare is already non-contributory anyway, so no there is no more, just your vapid lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no, that I know of, welfare in this country that is only available if you've actually made contributions.
Even "new-style" "contributory" JSA you can be eligible for with "contributions" of £0.00 if you were earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit but less than the Primary Threshold.
No it isn't, as I said JSA can only be claimed if you have worked as an employee and have paid NI contributions or credits for the last 2 to 3 years. Otherwise you can only get UC.
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
If you make £150 per week then have you made contributions? How much are those contributions?
Any contributions made as an employee count
And how much is the total amount of contribution that is being made?
Do you even know how to work it out?
Yes I know you want non contributory ever lasting welfare for all, you are even worse than the Labour backbench rebels!
No, I don't. We already have it!
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
To a limited extent we do. As I said you can't get JSA now without having been an employee and making an NI contribution.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
Bullshit we don't. We have people making a "countribution" of £0.00 and you are counting that as a contribution.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above. Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Yes we do, nobody claiming JSA has not worked as an employee and the vast majority of JSA claimants contributed via class 1 NI contributions.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare
So you believe people whose NI was £0.00 in the past two years would be denied JSA?
You are wrong.
I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.
If they had not worked as an employee they would be denied JSA and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions.
You don't want contributory welfare, even to the limited extend we have it now for most JSA and state pension claimants via NI, hence you want to scrap it.
I am sure a place can be found for you in Corbyn and Sultana's new party where you can scream for everlasting dependency culture and non contributory welfare to your hearts content!
If they have worked as an employee and had NI deductions of £0.00 per annum they're still entitled to the JSA and pension.
I have no desire to scrap any contribution systems that actually exists, but what part of we do not have any contributory welfare are you too thick to understand?
You could merge income tax and NI rates, set all NI tax rates to nil and keep all the "contributions" requirements that we have today.
You scrap NI, you end contributory welfare overnight even the small amount we do have.
JSA would cease to exist as no NI contributions would have been made for it and instead all unemployment claimants would just be on taxpayer funded UC without ever needing to have worked before and been an employee either. The state pension would also just be means tested pensions credit solely funded by tax too.
As I said, you are too leftwing even for Starmer, you belong in Corbyn's new party!
Um no it wouldn’t - the contribution would be based on paying (some) income tax.
But that’s irrelevant because both Bart and myself have pointed out that the point you start qualifying for JSA is well below the point that a worker starts paying any form of income based tax
Yes it would, income tax is a tax not an insurance set up to fund things like defence not just personal need like NI and it funds UC which would end up being the sole form of unemployment benefit, JSA would be scrapped with no NI contributions to claim it.
You only claim JSA if unemployed and having worked as an employee prior and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions for it
I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.
If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate
You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.
Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.
You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.
He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.
I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority
Given the polling about lockdown at the time I think it's highly unlikely that a majority of Basildon voters opposed it. They may oppose it now but that's different. Also, if people do oppose lockdowns then they're going to take an even dimmer view of someone undeservedly profiting from them.
Basildon is full of small business owners who were fed up enough of lockdown without being punished for getting the funds to stop their businesses going bust during it
If I accept that those people exist will you accept that they aren't "Most Basildon voters" as you originally said?
No, Reform won Basildon even last year
"I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown". That has nothing to do with Reform winning the election last time because unless I missed something, 2024 was after the COVID lockdowns. The IPSOS Mori poll conducted between 1-3 April 2020 showed 95% support nationally for the first lockdown. Unless Basildon voters were a massive statistical outlier then your statement is wrong.
"Legitimate business" owners might be upset about "pretend business" owners borrowing money they didn't meet the criteria for and not paying it back, which AIUI is the allegation. BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
Is HYUFD seriously defending loan fraud, or saying that Reform voters will ? So much for the law and order reputation of the Tory party faithful.
Saying Reform voters will and most of Basildon now votes Reform
murders of black people don't tend to feature heavily on the usual alt-right social media feeds
I don't even know what an 'alt right social media feed' is, so I can't comment directly. However, two points: on murders like the one you mention there is usually nothing worthwhile to say as the media print the press release and nothing more is available. So apart from repeating how terrible murder is, which we knew, there isn't anything to add.
Comments
So it was pretty much primary legislation. Nearly all the bunfights and deals were done before the Acts passed.
These days, it would be taken as a massive Attack On Legal Freedom. The Enquiry Industrial Complex is worth many billions.
As you are in Essex, perhaps you know a few too.
Now the Conservatives, especially those who had their noses in the trough, are preaching fiscal prudence. Politicians eh!
We are already one of the most welfare dependent nations on earth, in most nations unemployment benefits can only be claimed through social insurance contributions (sometimes as in the US and Canada and Poland with no other fall basic social benefit fall back). Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance not tax.
We should be moving towards a more contributory system rather than the welfare dependency culture you want
Happy user of BookCooker 3.1? Purchase BookCooker 3.2 with exciting new features, such as updated tax rates!
Do you even know how to work it out?
And do not worry, Wayne isn’t slumming it on £400k a year to host every weekend, just some.
https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/wayne-rooney-bbc-match-day-deal-b1236704.html
Rooney is hired as a pundit.
* that isn't quite true as I believe they will do Saturday and Sunday, rather than just Saturday.
On the other hand the BBC probably pay less for the rights than the Premier League would have previously got from other broadcasters. This time round I don't think that's the case though as over the past 18 months advertising based TV has seen their income start to fall drastically.
You are the ignorant one who believes that we have contributory welfare.
What "contributions" is someone earning £150 a week actually making, in pounds and pence, and are they entitled to JSA?
The problem is you are pontificating on stuff you don't understand.
Even if he was the second coming of Des Lynam, Ian St John, Graeme Souness, Roy Keane, and Glenn Hoddle rolled into one charismatic insightful person there is seriously no good justification for an hour long show each week, and not even every week in this case.
It's a racket in terms of cost, but cartel-like the providers have all realised it's the route to making lots of money...
You can choose whether to sell food or not, so that's moot.
Councils can't choose not to provide SEND, Care etc
The state mandates SEND, Care etc so it should fund it, not mandate that Councils fund what the Council didn't determine.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/07/airport-staff-get-bonuses-for-spotting-easyjet-oversize-bags-email-shows
Last time I flew EasyShite, I did think the staff had become way more aggressive in their demands that the bag fitted in their little stand. Previously I always found EasyShite were fairly relaxed in that if you had a rucksack that wasn't taking the piss they didn't even inquire.
I put that out merely as a possible suggestion. I don't have access to the requisite data. My point is that there could be a range of different confounding factors. The raw data is interesting, but we should be careful to conclude too much from it without further analysis.
As for Telegraph readers, you're right, they might be a lovely bunch. I am merely judging by what Telegraph journalists write.
I know he lives in Brazil and has a family, but still.
You could keep the same system/legislation but change the proportions. No need to throw out all that software they use.
We need even more. In the US and most OECD nations if you haven't contributed in social insurance as an employee you get ZERO unemployment benefits at all. Some don't even have a social assistance fall back like we do in UC either.
Most nations also fund their healthcare through social insurance primarily not tax. You just want dependency welfare everlasting
I remain unclear why tlg86 thinks a property tax would be so unpopular compared to our current property tax.
Mind you I don't flew Ryanair or EasyJet unless I absolutely have to - it's not worth the grieve..
HYUFD falls for plenty of myths. Call it a "contribution" of 0 pounds and 0 pence and he thinks contributions are actually being made. Its a myth though, and its our existing system.
Could you confirm my calculations are correct that someone consistently earning £150 a week would be entitled to "contributory" new-style JSA if they lose their job?
And could you confirm their "contributions" would have been the grand sum of 0 pounds and 0 pence?
And I can see a lot of 60-80 years old quietly complaining but they definitely wouldn't be in a position to riot..
Actually making a contribution, even a single penny, is not actually required.
As I say I found they way more aggressive with the checks than previously, also more pressured on the upsell on you will have to put that under your seat as you aren't "allowed" to put them in the overhead bins until you pay the £48.
The reality of course is the cabin crew will never really stop you putting your bag into the overhead bins as they have no idea who has paid what.
Name any welfare we have that is actually contributory, that requires contributions of £0.01 or above. Anything at all?
Hint: JSA does not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
Hint: Pensions do not require contributions of £0.01 per annum or above.
https://x.com/torstenbell/status/1941836326350864664?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ
However under our current system National Insurance of £0.00 per annum is a "contribution".
Contributions are a myth.
If you were not working as an employee you cannot claim JSA
Class 1 NI Contributions of £0.00 - do they count?
We could merge NI and Income Tax while keeping NI at £0.00 and keeping contributory provisions based on nil rates like we already have today.
As I said, you belong on the Labour backbenches with the welfare rebels, such is your commitment to dependency culture benefits rather than contributory welfare.
The vast majority of state pensioners will also have made NI contributions to claim it when working
You are wrong.
I would be delighted with actually having contributory welfare, but we do not have it today, and you are deluded if you think NI is contributory.
(In addition to @algarkirk comment “we’re all in it together” - spreading the pain across every interest group - is the only way to make this work)
They are definitely using ChatGPT to craft these statements. It has all the telltale signs of it.
To qualify for JSA you need to earn £125 a week.
For employee NI to appear as a deduction on a payslip you need to earn £242 a week.
Hence if you earn £125-241.99 a week you will qualify for a pension and for JSA but won't have contributed a penny from your pay towards it.
I have made no attempt to avoid tax
I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)
I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.
Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:
- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)
- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else
- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)
- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.
Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.
In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.
There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.
It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy
PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.
PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-thresholds-for-employers-2024-to-2025
Previously I believe someone earning £150 per week would be above the LEL so making "contributions" but below the secondary threshold (so no employer deduction) and below the primary threshold (so no employee deduction either).
Labour's reforms have lowered the secondary threshold to below the LEL, but that wasn't the case previously.
“Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Ukraine] is the good guy and this [Russia] is the bad guy.”
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1941304164119953667
You don't want contributory welfare, even to the limited extend we have it now for most JSA and state pension claimants via NI, hence you want to scrap it.
I am sure a place can be found for you in Corbyn and Sultana's new party where you can scream for everlasting dependency culture and non contributory welfare to your hearts content!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4eq9yelk5o
I have no desire to scrap any contribution systems that actually exists, but what part of we do not have any contributory welfare are you too thick to understand?
You could merge income tax and NI rates, set all NI tax rates to nil and keep all the "contributions" requirements that we have today.
That might just get through.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2024
- A version of Britain's Got Talent
- The prize is winning the job of presenting X on the BBC. For £250K, say.
- This would be opening up the job to the entire country, find undiscovered talent etc. Rather than handing out jobs to chums.
So if the median is £262 and anyone earning £242 or below pays zero, that implies plenty of people paying zero and getting "contributions".
It is a peculiarly if poetically shaped building, until you realise it is the city’s oldest and noblest mosque, gutted of all religious connotations and entirely cleansed of Islam
It’s excellent. £4
The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.
Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2025/last-pundit-standing-line-up
The BBC are happy to spaff our money up the wall looking for "talent", but they sure as hell won't let them on MotD.
This actually sparked a lot of criticism from established "content creators" who post on YouTube etc.
I'd be interested in the take of lawyers like @Cyclefree
TikTok and the "Dispensing Power"
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/165-tiktok-and-the-dispensing-power
On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order that promised not to enforce the statute for 75 days (a period that could be renewed). But it was only after Attorney General Bondi sent letters to various U.S. tech companies some time later that full access to TikTok was restored—letters that, at least at the time, were not made public (or even leaked)...
Late last week, in response to FOIA requests, 21 of those letters were made public. The letters are worth reading in their entirety (in some cases, multiple letters to the same company sent at different times were included). But to summarize the highlights, across those letters, the Attorney General of the United States memorialized some variation of the following three conclusions:
Companies that continue to support the TikTok app are not, in fact, violating the TikTok statute;
The TikTok statute is “properly read” to not “infringe upon . . . core Presidential national security and foreign affairs powers”; and
The Department of Justice is “irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had” against the recipients of the letters for both previous and ongoing violations of the act....
..The “dispensing” power claimed by pre-18th-century English kings was the power to decide, on an ad hoc basis, which laws could and should be set aside in individual cases—to exempt the King’s favorites not just from the retrospective operation of criminal laws (for which after-the-fact pardons could have the same effect), but from the retrospective and prospective application of civil laws, as well. The idea was that the King could literally “dispense” with application of whichever laws he wanted, for whatever reasons he wanted, in whatever cases he wanted.
One of the centerpieces of the English Bill of Rights, adopted by Parliament in 1689 at the end of the Glorious Revolution (as part of a package of reforms that had both the purpose and effect of pushing England toward a constitutional monarchy), was the express abolition of the dispensing power. And when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Take Care Clause of Article II (requiring the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”) was largely understood as a repudiation of any dispensing authority. Indeed, the Supreme Court would reassert that understanding in 1838, noting that a “dispensing power”
"has no countenance for its support in any part of the Constitution, and is asserting a principle which, if carried out in its results to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power entirely to control the legislation of Congress and paralyze the administration of justice"...
JSA would cease to exist as no NI contributions would have been made for it and instead all unemployment claimants would just be on taxpayer funded UC without ever needing to have worked before and been an employee either. The state pension would also just be means tested pensions credit solely funded by tax too.
As I said, you are too leftwing even for Starmer, you belong in Corbyn's new party!
The YouTubers shouldn’t get too precious. Plenty of openings for them on Sky
But that’s irrelevant because both Bart and myself have pointed out that the point you start qualifying for JSA is well below the point that a worker starts paying any form of income based tax
Two points: it all happened a long way from London, and outside England which tends to make it a regional story; Cumbrian murders get very little wider coverage; and I have no idea if this is a 'total innocent stranger murder' story - which always has much more interest for the popular press, as despite impressions, they are rare.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8zdvzj5vwo
BBL fraud is just as much fraud as benefit fraud, except it's generally for a larger amount and with greater intent than not correctly declaring an additional hour at Tescos.
I’m not sure we discuss many murders unless they are particularly remarkable but I’m hoping you feel magnificent trying to turn a tragic event into some moral one-upmanship, I’m guessing it’s what her family would want.
So much for the law and order reputation of the Tory party faithful.
You only claim JSA if unemployed and having worked as an employee prior and the vast majority of JSA claimants will have made class 1 NI contributions for it
Most murders don't get national attention.