If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.
Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.
I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
Not by the 1970s, the economy and GDP per capita only grew again under Thatcher
Total fiction.
The actual figures are: 1960s Average growth: 2.5 % 1970s Average growth: 2.3 % 1980s Average growth: 2.5 % 1990s Average growth: 1.8 % 2000s Average growth: 1.9 % 2010s Average growth: 1.6 %
Its almost as if there has been a long term trend downwards under governments of all colours.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
People define fairly in different ways, however.
I once worked as a commercial traveller for a Yorkshireman who hated salesmen. He would quite often interject at management meetings with a rousing and motivational, "if it were up to me I wouldn't even pay you bastards with washers".
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
The Savanta London poll published today is fascinating as it's been months since a proper London poll. Reform have prospered in the capital, at the expense primarily of Labour but with the LDs and Greens also falling back. Indeed, the last two named and the Conservatives are almost back to their 2024 GE numbers with the big swing (around 12%) from Labour to Reform.
What could this mean for the local elections next year? It's interesting to hear Bromley Council's Conservative leader, when welcoming the defection of an Independent to his group, clearly call Reform as the main challenger to continued Conservative rule on Bromley and even in Newham, Reform polled 16% in a by election in a strong Muslim Ward a couple of months ago.
To be honest, between the Newham Independents, the Greens and Reform, Labour have a lot on their plate even here but it might be the anti-Labour vote will split enough for control to be retained, who knows? I have no clue as to which of the three will field full slates or where candidates will stand and that will be enlightening.
Reform should pick up council seats from Labour and the Conservatives in outer London on those numbers and the Conservatives and Greens should pick up seats from Labour in inner London
There's also local groups like Aspire and the Newham Independents to consider in Inner East London. They could easily win large numbers of Muslim votes and take a number of Wards in Newham, Tower Hamlets and perhaps Redbridge.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
People define fairly in different ways, however.
I once worked as a commercial traveller for a Yorkshireman who hated salesmen. He would quite often interject at management meetings with a rousing and motivational, "if it were up to me I wouldn't even pay you bastards with washers".
Led by a human rights lawyer, it - ignores judgments it doesn't like, - lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both, - disregards rights for women, - is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed) - thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying), - seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment - Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them - And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Yes I'm furious .......
Quite something. Sir Keir-esque
Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.
The Government need to pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country to make sure these can happen in a way that is safe.
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
Well, that was my point. We are paying substantial benefits to people in work, and have been doing so for a long time, because some employers pay wages that are simply not enough for people to live on. Higher wages will bring the benefits bill down, which we all support don't we?
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Especially when unemployment is by far the highest in that demographic.
You don't know any of that. He may be the only bread winner looking after his infirmed mum and dad.
I have this horrible feeling that the net result of the hundreds of tweaks and tinkerings — to avoid exiting the hole that Labour dug for itself with their rash promises during the election — is going to be one of the worst budgets ever. I expect that Reeves, or her successor, will be in the same mess again next year.
I'm left to muse whether there is a scintilla of truth in the claims leaving the EU has reduced the amount of tax paid to the UK Government by between £65 and £95 billion per annum?
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
At my daughter's job - student working in a chain eatery - they've already been warned that the total hours of staffing will be reduced, as a result of this increase in minimum wage.
The manager is trying to work out how the shifts will be affected. Apparently he is considering afternoon closing - talking to corporate about it.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
That can't be true surely, aren't you having a Laffer?
Led by a human rights lawyer, it - ignores judgments it doesn't like, - lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both, - disregards rights for women, - is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed) - thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying), - seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment - Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them - And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Yes I'm furious .......
Quite something. Sir Keir-esque
Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.
The Government need to pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country to make sure these can happen in a way that is safe.
I have this horrible feeling that the net result of the hundreds of tweaks and tinkerings — to avoid exiting the hole that Labour dug for itself with their rash promises during the election — is going to be one of the worst budgets ever. I expect that Reeves, or her successor, will be in the same mess again next year.
People tend to focus on a lot of minor things over the big stuff anyway, it's easier to understand and conceptualise, so maybe lots of small tweaks could even be counter productive to trying to avoid pissing people off?
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
That can't be true surely, aren't you having a Laffer?
I have always been consistent in saying that the Laffer Curve is most visible at our cliff edges.
Cliff edges that can mean people are not taking home more if they work more, so they do not.
Whether you are talking 25 or 27, 45 or 47, etc is much of a muchness. Politics. Whether you are talking 30 or 90 is Laffer Curve.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
Technology should allow a truly gradual income tax rate increase. E.g. £15,000 nil rate band, followed by a 1% rate between £15,000 and £16,500 p.a., 2% between £16,500 and £18,000 and increasing by 1% for each £1,500 up to 59% between £103,500 and £105,000 and 60% on all income over £105,000 per annum. No adjustments for child benefit or reduction of personal allowances. Maybe also adjust rates to combine IT and NI. Removes all cliff edges and simplifies the system.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
Technology should allow a truly gradual income tax rate increase. E.g. £15,000 nil rate band, followed by a 1% rate between £15,000 and £16,500 p.a., 2% between £16,500 and £18,000 and increasing by 1% for each £1,500 up to 59% between £103,500 and £105,000 and 60% on all income over £105,000 per annum. No adjustments for child benefit or reduction of personal allowances. Maybe also adjust rates to combine IT and NI. Removes all cliff edges and simplifies the system.
Even simple rates & a fixed personal allowance, remove the cliff edges.
Led by a human rights lawyer, it - ignores judgments it doesn't like, - lies to Parliament and/or the courts or both, - disregards rights for women, - is utterly dishonest about pretending the AD Bill is not in reality a government bill (it is already spending money on how the Bill will be implemented before it's final form is determined and the law actually passed) - thinks the test for such a law is that it should be "effective" not "safe" (which the PM is now conspicuously not saying), - seems not to realise the one of the arguments for it - that it is ok for some to die wrongfully if this is for the greater good - totally undermines the chief objection to capital punishment - Is happy for poverty to be a reason for the state to help you kill yourself, forgetting that Labour was originally set up to help the poor not kill them - And now wants to abolish trial by jury, one of the few truly democratic elements of our justice system and constitution.
It is not the existence of juries which cause delays in our justice system. It is the failure by this and previous governments to fund the first and most basic function of the state properly.
This is a government which knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Every word I wrote then is valid, even more so, now. Every. Single. Word. And that utter idiot Lammy should be hanging his head in shame at what he is proposing, given the review he authored in 2017.
Yes I'm furious .......
Quite something. Sir Keir-esque
Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.
The Government need to pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country to make sure these can happen in a way that is safe.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
That can't be true surely, aren't you having a Laffer?
I have always been consistent in saying that the Laffer Curve is most visible at our cliff edges.
Cliff edges that can mean people are not taking home more if they work more, so they do not.
Whether you are talking 25 or 27, 45 or 47, etc is much of a muchness. Politics. Whether you are talking 30 or 90 is Laffer Curve.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Especially when unemployment is by far the highest in that demographic.
You don't know any of that. He may be the only bread winner looking after his infirmed mum and dad.
That may be the case and leaving that sole bread winner unemployed as one in eight young adults are rather than allowing an employer to hire them at a viable wage achieves what exactly?
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
Technology should allow a truly gradual income tax rate increase. E.g. £15,000 nil rate band, followed by a 1% rate between £15,000 and £16,500 p.a., 2% between £16,500 and £18,000 and increasing by 1% for each £1,500 up to 59% between £103,500 and £105,000 and 60% on all income over £105,000 per annum. No adjustments for child benefit or reduction of personal allowances. Maybe also adjust rates to combine IT and NI. Removes all cliff edges and simplifies the system.
Please don't - I can think of multiple payroll providers who can't even use the current rates correctly.
On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.
Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.
I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
Not by the 1970s, the economy and GDP per capita only grew again under Thatcher
Total fiction.
The actual figures are: 1960s Average growth: 2.5 % 1970s Average growth: 2.3 % 1980s Average growth: 2.5 % 1990s Average growth: 1.8 % 2000s Average growth: 1.9 % 2010s Average growth: 1.6 %
So the fastest growth rate we have had since the 1960s was under Thatcher in the 1980s, thanks for the confirmation
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
At my daughter's job - student working in a chain eatery - they've already been warned that the total hours of staffing will be reduced, as a result of this increase in minimum wage.
The manager is trying to work out how the shifts will be affected. Apparently he is considering afternoon closing - talking to corporate about it.
Last years minimum wage increase created a whole set of issues with places reducing hours. Next year is going to be far, far worse...
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
Well, that was my point. We are paying substantial benefits to people in work, and have been doing so for a long time, because some employers pay wages that are simply not enough for people to live on. Higher wages will bring the benefits bill down, which we all support don't we?
Not if hours worked goes down, no it won't.
And the in work benefits bill largely does not go to working 18-20 year olds, it goes to parents primarily.
Bumping youth unemployment won't help that at all and denying people a first job won't help that at all.
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
At my daughter's job - student working in a chain eatery - they've already been warned that the total hours of staffing will be reduced, as a result of this increase in minimum wage.
The manager is trying to work out how the shifts will be affected. Apparently he is considering afternoon closing - talking to corporate about it.
I fear one of my granddaughters will be in a similar situation.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
People define fairly in different ways, however.
I once worked as a commercial traveller for a Yorkshireman who hated salesmen. He would quite often interject at management meetings with a rousing and motivational, "if it were up to me I wouldn't even pay you bastards with washers".
Would he only pay you with scrubbers?
It was an engineering company in Bradford. Nuts, bolts and washers kind of washers.
He was a "when I were a lad I lived in a cardboard box on the M1" self made Tory. The absolute worst kind. He promoted the personal politics of envy that we all blame socialists for on here.
We all had Motorola carphones installed into our Vauxhall Carltons at vast expense to the company, but he didn't like carphones, "I can do business wi'out a bloody carphone" and promptly cut off all the carphone contracts with enormous breach of contract penalties. It was all a little ridiculous when our entire customer base could only contact us directly to give orders via the cellphones. Still it showed us bastards who was boss.
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
Both things absolutely can be true simultaneously.
Especially when it comes to slicing the market by demographics.
There is a reason why the 18-20 age group has a lower minimum. This is people primarily with the least work history/experience, lowest living costs, and highest risk of unemployment.
An employer giving a first job to a young person can help them going on to their second and beyond. Setting up a lifetime of work.
Killing the employers of young people, at a time of a "crisis"* of youth unemployment, is not smart.
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
They aren't contradictory - the fact this country has for the past 15 years used low cost migrant labour rather than improving productivity is why the increases in minimum wage are so painful.
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
1. Migrants now can’t get a visa unless they earn £38.700 a year. 2. Though unemployment is now 5% and rising with the high minimum wage rate and employers national insurance increase.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Especially when unemployment is by far the highest in that demographic.
You don't know any of that. He may be the only bread winner looking after his infirmed mum and dad.
That may be the case and leaving that sole bread winner unemployed as one in eight young adults are rather than allowing an employer to hire them at a viable wage achieves what exactly?
I have this horrible feeling that the net result of the hundreds of tweaks and tinkerings — to avoid exiting the hole that Labour dug for itself with their rash promises during the election — is going to be one of the worst budgets ever. I expect that Reeves, or her successor, will be in the same mess again next year.
People tend to focus on a lot of minor things over the big stuff anyway, it's easier to understand and conceptualise, so maybe lots of small tweaks could even be counter productive to trying to avoid pissing people off?
Good point. Like the inheritance taxes for farmer?
If you raise income tax or NI, everyone at least perceives their own treatment as being the same as others. If hundreds* of measures whack all sorts of groups there will be an enormous number of people who think that in some way the government is targetting them.
So yes there is a highish probability that by trying to sneakily climb out of the hole Labour dug they end up with something that is fiscally, economically, and politically very poor.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.
Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.
I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
Not by the 1970s, the economy and GDP per capita only grew again under Thatcher
Total fiction.
The actual figures are: 1960s Average growth: 2.5 % 1970s Average growth: 2.3 % 1980s Average growth: 2.5 % 1990s Average growth: 1.8 % 2000s Average growth: 1.9 % 2010s Average growth: 1.6 %
So the fastest growth rate we have had since the 1960s was under Thatcher in the 1980s, thanks for the confirmation
Or despite no oil shock, north sea oil revenues, it revolution and big bang, UK only grew by 0.2% more pa than in the terrible 70s... Lost opportunity
I suspect the Budget will not achieve the big tax raising that Labour wants. So we will have to go through this again next year. The problem for Labour is that this time next year will be very much mid term and people will be thinking more seriously about who to vote for at the next GE...
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
Haven’t you noticed that the gig economy is about insulating big employers from illegally employing people, and in effect paying them below minimum wage?
See Deliveroo. Guess who their favourite employees are?
The minimum wage was introduced to stop wages collapsing to zilch with free movement of labour. Using it to try and force pay rises probably won’t work.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
Technology should allow a truly gradual income tax rate increase. E.g. £15,000 nil rate band, followed by a 1% rate between £15,000 and £16,500 p.a., 2% between £16,500 and £18,000 and increasing by 1% for each £1,500 up to 59% between £103,500 and £105,000 and 60% on all income over £105,000 per annum. No adjustments for child benefit or reduction of personal allowances. Maybe also adjust rates to combine IT and NI. Removes all cliff edges and simplifies the system.
The rates would have to be higher than those, which give an overall tax rate of 8.5% on £50k, 16.4% on £75k and 24.5% on £100k
versus today's of 14.9%, 23.2% and 27.4% respectively (exc. NI).
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
At my daughter's job - student working in a chain eatery - they've already been warned that the total hours of staffing will be reduced, as a result of this increase in minimum wage.
The manager is trying to work out how the shifts will be affected. Apparently he is considering afternoon closing - talking to corporate about it.
Last years minimum wage increase created a whole set of issues with places reducing hours. Next year is going to be far, far worse...
My local FB groups had a fair few stories of people ending up with reduced hours as a consequence of what happened last year.
Sadly this will hurt the very people it’s supposed to help.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
That can't be true surely, aren't you having a Laffer?
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
Surely inequality is inevitable if you want people to put in some effort (which is intrinsically their contribution). If they get no reward from it then people will do the minimum (unless you have an unrealistic assumption about the scalability of a family-level culture)
Mad racist 64 year old spiv was also a mad racist spiv at 15 is up there with 'Post Office boss turns out to have been in constant trouble at school for lying.'
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
Nope - work 40 hours at minimum wage and you hit the new lower £25,000 threshold for paying back your student loan.
Next year you hit the threshold with a 38 hour week.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
Watching MasterChef on my tiny telly in the Rhyl Seafront Travelodge I think it a shame that John has got the boot. John and Grace are doing a great job. Much better than when the greengrocer sans pants was presenting.
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
At my daughter's job - student working in a chain eatery - they've already been warned that the total hours of staffing will be reduced, as a result of this increase in minimum wage.
The manager is trying to work out how the shifts will be affected. Apparently he is considering afternoon closing - talking to corporate about it.
Last years minimum wage increase created a whole set of issues with places reducing hours. Next year is going to be far, far worse...
My local FB groups had a fair few stories of people ending up with reduced hours as a consequence of what happened last year.
Sadly this will hurt the very people it’s supposed to help.
I don't want to burst any balloons but there was actually an uptick in total hours worked when the minimum wage last went up:
Obviously lots of other factors at play here (population etc etc) but, at a whole economy level, the change doesn't seem to have had the dramatic effect described here on PB.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
Is there any evidence that the people in each of those categories who weren't privately educated perform better?
Do you think the 7% who were privately educated deserve to take 63% of the senior judge positions? Were they inherently better at birth?
That's a contradictory complaint if it's their education that you take issue with. Even if they were not inherently better at birth, their education and training might make them more suited for a position of authority.
Well maybe*. But where's the equality of opportunity if some kids get an education that fast tracks them into a top job that will enable them to fast track their children into a top job, that will...
(*It's not just the quality of the education though, it's the biases of the recruiters. Plenty of very mediocre but well educated people end up in jobs they are unable to perform at all well.)
Equality of opportunity is as unrealistic as equality of outcome because you can't prevent parents from doing things to improve their children's life chances. Even if you banned private education, you can't stop parents teaching them or passing on domain knowledge.
You're doing reductibus ex absurdium. Inequality being inevitable (which it is) doesn't mean it's not a feasible objective to reduce it. You wouldn't want to trash overall prosperity or fundamental human rights in pursuit of this - but I think we have the scope to do a few things without approaching that sort of PolPotian tyranny.
But maybe reducing inequality is the wrong goal? It can become a a distraction from solving real problems because policy becomes focused on manipulating an arbitrary statistic.
It's hardly the only situation where's a danger of policy becoming focused on manipulating an arbitrary statistic! How much of the immigration debate, or tax policy, or spending policies, or policing numbers, or... are about arbitrary statistics?
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
The key is where these votes are. 23% across the whole of London would win very little but if concentrated in eastern and southeastern outer suburbs might win seats like Romford for example.
The Green vote is likely in Inner London, the LD vote in southwestern suburban London - the numbers for the LDs, Greens and Conservatives are close to their 2024 GE shares.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
In less than two years the stock market is up by a quarter. Yet the economy is pretty moribund. I know we're inflating things but isn't this a little strange? Money too cheap?
FPT: Was there anything in the Labour manifesto regarding a severe restriction in the right to trial by jury?
One suspects that the Lords will tear apart any attempt by the Commons to do so.
I'm struggling to work out which logjam (court, judge, lawyer availability) reducing jury trials solves.
This is something, we must do it.
Probably saves money. But at a huge cost in liberties.
I would have thought if anything it would slow trials down by leading to even longer, more pointless and more arcane arguments on points of law. And that would make them more expensive...
Well, I wasn't expecting that. My head canon said that Labour would still do well in London. But I also expected Lib and Gre to do well also. If this is real (and I'm not saying it isn't), then this is really bad for everybody but Reform. My head hurts. ☹️
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Personal anecdote, but not all of us share the obsession with how much tax we pay. I had a pretty standard career trajectory, although a slow starter, and for the 20 years before I retired I was paying the higher rate of tax, having crossed the threshold. But I can honestly say I never noticed, and was never bothered. As far as I was concerned, my take-home pay just kept going up and up, so I was quite content and recognised that I was significantly better off than most. The fact that it didn't go up quite as much as it would have if income tax rates had been lower seemed utterly irrelevant. Am I unusual?
So long as your take home is going up it is not that concerning for most.
The huge problem is the cliff edges that mean that take home is not going up.
Then people who do not do maths will turn into Rainman to maximise their takehome.
Technology should allow a truly gradual income tax rate increase. E.g. £15,000 nil rate band, followed by a 1% rate between £15,000 and £16,500 p.a., 2% between £16,500 and £18,000 and increasing by 1% for each £1,500 up to 59% between £103,500 and £105,000 and 60% on all income over £105,000 per annum. No adjustments for child benefit or reduction of personal allowances. Maybe also adjust rates to combine IT and NI. Removes all cliff edges and simplifies the system.
The rates would have to be higher than those, which give an overall tax rate of 8.5% on £50k, 16.4% on £75k and 24.5% on £100k
versus today's of 14.9%, 23.2% and 27.4% respectively (exc. NI).
There's some sense in increasing the number of bands to make higher rates more like steps than a cliff edge.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
People define fairly in different ways, however.
I once worked as a commercial traveller for a Yorkshireman who hated salesmen. He would quite often interject at management meetings with a rousing and motivational, "if it were up to me I wouldn't even pay you bastards with washers".
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
A hell of a lot less dangerous than cases heard solely by judges.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Won't rises in wages at the bottom end help to reduce the benefits bill?
Depends on whether employers pay the higher wages to everyone or reduce staffing to compensate.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
At my daughter's job - student working in a chain eatery - they've already been warned that the total hours of staffing will be reduced, as a result of this increase in minimum wage.
The manager is trying to work out how the shifts will be affected. Apparently he is considering afternoon closing - talking to corporate about it.
Last years minimum wage increase created a whole set of issues with places reducing hours. Next year is going to be far, far worse...
My local FB groups had a fair few stories of people ending up with reduced hours as a consequence of what happened last year.
Sadly this will hurt the very people it’s supposed to help.
I don't want to burst any balloons but there was actually an uptick in total hours worked when the minimum wage last went up:
Obviously lots of other factors at play here (population etc etc) but, at a whole economy level, the change doesn't seem to have had the dramatic effect described here on PB.
You’re not bursting any balloons, and your graph shows a peak of hours in April with falls every month since.
It also doesn’t show the effect on lower wage earners. It’s looking at the labour market as a whole.
We also know the jobs market is contracting and there’s fewer opportunities out there.
Mad racist 64 year old spiv was also a mad racist spiv at 15 is up there with 'Post Office boss turns out to have been in constant trouble at school for lying.'
What is interesting is the more mainstream coverage- presumably because the Gill case makes the media think they have a chink in Farage's armour.
Things becoming news long after they should have become news... isn't news.
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
Haven’t you noticed that the gig economy is about insulating big employers from illegally employing people, and in effect paying them below minimum wage?
See Deliveroo. Guess who their favourite employees are?
The minimum wage was introduced to stop wages collapsing to zilch with free movement of labour. Using it to try and force pay rises probably won’t work.
Yep were going to end up like the French and a two-tier employment system.
Tier 1: high minimum wages and protections for those formally employed. Hard to get rid of.
Tier 2: lots of 'self-employed' with below minimum wage earnings and no security or protections.
And the percentage of workers in tier 2 will then increase over time.
...I'd have thought Labour would have been better off improving protections for the current deliveroo drivers etc and not creating latent demand for more people to be employed in that way.
In less than two years the stock market is up by a quarter. Yet the economy is pretty moribund. I know we're inflating things but isn't this a little strange? Money too cheap?
FTSE100 companies earn most of their income abroad.
Go down to the 250, 350, AIM or small caps it’s a different picture.
I’m not sure Reeves offering a stamp duty holiday on shares that list will help either,
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
A hell of a lot less dangerous than cases heard solely by judges.
+1 the problem with fraud is that you have to spend ages getting people up to speed on how finance and say balance sheets work.
Using professional jurors / magistrates for that type of case who have the basic knowledge could probably knock away 50% of the trial time
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
Haven’t you noticed that the gig economy is about insulating big employers from illegally employing people, and in effect paying them below minimum wage?
See Deliveroo. Guess who their favourite employees are?
The minimum wage was introduced to stop wages collapsing to zilch with free movement of labour. Using it to try and force pay rises probably won’t work.
Yep were going to end up like the French and a two-tier employment system.
Tier 1: high minimum wages and protections for those formally employed. Hard to get rid of.
Tier 2: lots of 'self-employed' with below minimum wage earnings and no security or protections.
And the percentage of workers in tier 2 will then increase over time.
...I'd have thought Labour would have been better off improving protections for the current deliveroo drivers etc and not creating latent demand for more people to be employed in that way.
They are trying to - the description I’ve got of dealing with deliveroo and co is that it’s like whackamole, you fix one loophole and they reveal the next trick
But there are definitions of what a worker is coming soon - it may even be hidden in tomorrows budget
In less than two years the stock market is up by a quarter. Yet the economy is pretty moribund. I know we're inflating things but isn't this a little strange? Money too cheap?
FTSE100 companies earn most of their income abroad.
Go down to the 250, 350, AIM or small caps it’s a different picture.
I’m not sure Reeves offering a stamp duty holiday on shares that list will help either,
It may stop a firm or two moving their main listing to the US which I believe is the City's current worry.
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) always assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
I've sat across from people rejecting more hours. Because their benefits get withdrawn, creating effective super tax rates.
Laffer Curve in action.
Why work a bunch of hours to end up with not enough money to cover travel costs for the day? Let alone buy a sandwich for lunch.
I dislike the UC 55% 'tax rate' as much as anyone on here, regularly trying to help as I do people impacted by it.
But your example is says a lot about you tbh. If you are faced with a hike in your rent which means you can't cover it, most people will work whatever hours they can get, even at 45p in the £, to try to bridge that gap.
You clearly have either never been in that position or forgotten what it is like.
Or you know claim housing benefit. is that not exactly what it is designed for.
Oh yes, because they only think to claim HB when the rent goes up?
You do realise that HB only pays a set amount regardless of the actual rent. Rent goes up - HB stays the same.
only if you are over the maximum allowed surely? so you are saying this guy is already getting maximum housing benefit, then a big rent rise, so then he has to work extra. But he is still not eligible for any kind of tax credit or UC. Sucks to be him.
At least 95% of the privately renting clients receiving HB who I meet at CAB are receiving less than their rent in HB.
Check out the Local Housing Allowance rates in your area and compare it with the average local rents:
Isn't that because the levels are set at the 30th percentile so people renting at the average (50th percentile) will by definition not be getting the amount to cover it?
That and it's also set using old data. But my point was to refute @trukat's assertion that a hike in rent is simply covered by housing benefit. For most people that's not happening
Reforms increase in polling apparently coming from the Lib Dem’s and Greens . Unless we’re supposed to believe voters moved to Labour from them making up for a big swing to Reform from Labour .
Comments
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
I would add that if we are paying substantial benefits to people in work something is seriously wrong with our economic system anyway.
Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.
The Government need to pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country to make sure these can happen in a way that is safe.
https://x.com/davidlammy/status/1274301160216805377?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The Government just announced that we have a "crisis" as one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-investigation-to-be-launched-to-tackle-rising-youth-inactivity
There response to that now? Drive up costs for anyone offering a first job to people in that demographic.
Joined up thinking.
The manager is trying to work out how the shifts will be affected. Apparently he is considering afternoon closing - talking to corporate about it.
Cliff edges that can mean people are not taking home more if they work more, so they do not.
Whether you are talking 25 or 27, 45 or 47, etc is much of a muchness. Politics. Whether you are talking 30 or 90 is Laffer Curve.
(*Replace with: NHS, economy, defence, education, transport infrastructure, power generation, BBC,... as required.)
And the in work benefits bill largely does not go to working 18-20 year olds, it goes to parents primarily.
Bumping youth unemployment won't help that at all and denying people a first job won't help that at all.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants.
2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
He was a "when I were a lad I lived in a cardboard box on the M1" self made Tory. The absolute worst kind. He promoted the personal politics of envy that we all blame socialists for on here.
We all had Motorola carphones installed into our Vauxhall Carltons at vast expense to the company, but he didn't like carphones, "I can do business wi'out a bloody carphone" and promptly cut off all the carphone contracts with enormous breach of contract penalties. It was all a little ridiculous when our entire customer base could only contact us directly to give orders via the cellphones. Still it showed us bastards who was boss.
Especially when it comes to slicing the market by demographics.
There is a reason why the 18-20 age group has a lower minimum. This is people primarily with the least work history/experience, lowest living costs, and highest risk of unemployment.
An employer giving a first job to a young person can help them going on to their second and beyond. Setting up a lifetime of work.
Killing the employers of young people, at a time of a "crisis"* of youth unemployment, is not smart.
* Source: This Government.
2. Though unemployment is now 5% and rising with the high minimum wage rate and employers national insurance increase.
If you raise income tax or NI, everyone at least perceives their own treatment as being the same as others. If hundreds* of measures whack all sorts of groups there will be an enormous number of people who think that in some way the government is targetting them.
So yes there is a highish probability that by trying to sneakily climb out of the hole Labour dug they end up with something that is fiscally, economically, and politically very poor.
* Lots at least.
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
Lost opportunity
Did chuckle at people on FB groups crowing about their increase in wage only to see their hours cut,
See Deliveroo. Guess who their favourite employees are?
The minimum wage was introduced to stop wages collapsing to zilch with free movement of labour. Using it to try and force pay rises probably won’t work.
8.5% on £50k,
16.4% on £75k and
24.5% on £100k
versus today's of 14.9%, 23.2% and 27.4% respectively (exc. NI).
Sadly this will hurt the very people it’s supposed to help.
Obviously that was caused by the record breaking fall in growth we experienced in 2020 which happened a few weeks after we left the EU.
(I hope @TSE will forgive me.)
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
Mad racist 64 year old spiv was also a mad racist spiv at 15 is up there with 'Post Office boss turns out to have been in constant trouble at school for lying.'
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Next year you hit the threshold with a 38 hour week.
Westminster Voting Intention [London]:
LAB: 32% (=)
RFM: 23% (+8)
CON: 20% (-1)
LDM: 11% (-2)
GRN: 10% (-3)
Via @Savanta_UK, 30 Oct - 7 Nov.
Changes w/ 29 Apr - 21 May.
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1993402614764257462?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/ybus/lms
Obviously lots of other factors at play here (population etc etc) but, at a whole economy level, the change doesn't seem to have had the dramatic effect described here on PB.
Liam Byrne MP"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSmYYYXg-nU
Last time I checked, Liam Byrne was the Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill.
The Green vote is likely in Inner London, the LD vote in southwestern suburban London - the numbers for the LDs, Greens and Conservatives are close to their 2024 GE shares.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court
£32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court
£64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/what-you-can-claim-if-youre-an-employee
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-25/witkoff-advised-russia-on-how-to-pitch-ukraine-plan-to-trump
... So not yet at crisis levels - it took a long time to get down to these levels after 2008 - but higher than you'd want it. And rising.
It does not strike me as a good time to try and reduce the difference in wage floor between young and older adults.
It also doesn’t show the effect on lower wage earners. It’s looking at the labour market as a whole.
We also know the jobs market is contracting and there’s fewer opportunities out there.
Brace brace.
Things becoming news long after they should have become news... isn't news.
Tier 1: high minimum wages and protections for those formally employed. Hard to get rid of.
Tier 2: lots of 'self-employed' with below minimum wage earnings and no security or protections.
And the percentage of workers in tier 2 will then increase over time.
...I'd have thought Labour would have been better off improving protections for the current deliveroo drivers etc and not creating latent demand for more people to be employed in that way.
Go down to the 250, 350, AIM or small caps it’s a different picture.
I’m not sure Reeves offering a stamp duty holiday on shares that list will help either,
Using professional jurors / magistrates for that type of case who have the basic knowledge could probably knock away 50% of the trial time
But there are definitions of what a worker is coming soon - it may even be hidden in tomorrows budget
Lammy has gone even further than the Leveson recommendations, and they were bad enough.
Reforms increase in polling apparently coming from the Lib Dem’s and Greens . Unless we’re supposed to believe voters moved to Labour from them making up for a big swing to Reform from Labour .