Off topic, I am absolutely loving the MAGA lot/anti-woke mob thinking The Odyssey was an entirely true story.
The extent of MAGA ignorance/confusion over Homer - not to mention Ancient Greek sexual mores - is spectacular.
They probably really hate the idea that the Phaeacians - a bunch of woke proto-hippy lefties if ever I saw them - are the heroes of the story and finally get Odysseus back to Ithaca.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
The children of the elderly are in their 60s and mostly don't need the money. And maybe they face having the value of parent's house being swallowed up in care home fees. Could be a good option.
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
More like we have to face up to cutting the amount of money showered in benefits.
No-one has yet worked out how to do that, it seems.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
I work in this sector, this is literally my day job.
Yep - you read that and you wonder how come Coutts screwed up quite so badly...
Coutts was 2023 and this was 2024 however reading between the lines if Posh George had so much access to and organising for Nigel Farage perhaps their finances crossed over.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
I work in this sector, this is literally my day job.
Yep - you read that and you wonder how come Coutts screwed up quite so badly...
I suppose the only problem is that the timings don't match. Coutts debanked Farage a year before Reform received the Cottrell donations and had their banking susended. So that can't have been the driver.
I assume there must be other big donations to either Reform or Farage directly that led to the debanking. But in that case why didn't Coutts state that as the reason?
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
I work in this sector, this is literally my day job.
Yep - you read that and you wonder how come Coutts screwed up quite so badly...
I suppose the only problem is that the timings don't match. Coutts debanked Farage a year before Reform received the Cottrell donations and had their banking susended. SO that can't have been the driver.
I assume there must be other big donations to either Reform or Farage directly that led to the debanking. But in that case why didn't Coutts state that as the reason?
This is the problem with money laundering regulations and CIFAS markers, you cannot publicly state the reasons whilst investigations are ongoing as not to tip off the person suspected.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
I work in this sector, this is literally my day job.
Yep - you read that and you wonder how come Coutts screwed up quite so badly...
Coutts was 2023 and this was 2024 however reading between the lines if Posh George had so much access to and organising for Nigel Farage perhaps their finances crossed over.
Farage has never been one to follow the rules.
All through this period Farage was still the majotity share holder in Reform even when he was not actually leader.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
I work in this sector, this is literally my day job.
Yep - you read that and you wonder how come Coutts screwed up quite so badly...
Coutts was 2023 and this was 2024 however reading between the lines if Posh George had so much access to and organising for Nigel Farage perhaps their finances crossed over.
Farage has never been one to follow the rules.
All through this period Farage was still the majotity share holder in Reform even when he was not actually leader.
The other complication is that Farage is classed as a Politically Exposed Person which complicates things even more.
Here's Jeremy Hunt recalling he couldn't open a Monzo account because he was classed as a PEP.
NEW: Andy Burnham has been caught using the Prime Ministerial private jet to fly to his first day at 'No10 North'. Taxpayers are footing a £30,000 bill for a domestic hop that spews years' worth of carbon. Typical Labour hypocrisy. #
The platform, hired by Adura from Norwegian company Odfjell Drilling, was taken to a shipyard in Bergen for repairs. It is now back at Rosebank but not yet operational.
Odfjell Drilling said in internal documentation that the rig could be out of action for up to four months. The Guardian understands this means that some oil wells will be completed significantly behind schedule...
NEW: Andy Burnham has been caught using the Prime Ministerial private jet to fly to his first day at 'No10 North'. Taxpayers are footing a £30,000 bill for a domestic hop that spews years' worth of carbon. Typical Labour hypocrisy. #
NEW: Andy Burnham has been caught using the Prime Ministerial private jet to fly to his first day at 'No10 North'. Taxpayers are footing a £30,000 bill for a domestic hop that spews years' worth of carbon. Typical Labour hypocrisy. #
It ain't new; I posted about it here yesterday.
worth posting many times, another grifting arse leading the country
The platform, hired by Adura from Norwegian company Odfjell Drilling, was taken to a shipyard in Bergen for repairs. It is now back at Rosebank but not yet operational.
Odfjell Drilling said in internal documentation that the rig could be out of action for up to four months. The Guardian understands this means that some oil wells will be completed significantly behind schedule...
It happens. In 2024 I was evacuated from the Ocean Great White drilling on the Schiehallion field in a pretty much identical situation.
We managed to drop 1500ft of riser and BOPs on the seafloor after the main connector failed during a hurricane. We were evacuated because it dropped across the main gas export line from the field.
It will take time to recover the riser and BOPs and also to do repairs to the rig (it is not a platform as the article states, but the Deep Sea Atlantic semi-submersible drilling rig). The whole riser system is held under great tension and when it fails there is a massive rebound that can cause significant damage to the moonpool area of the rig if you are unlucky.
NEW: Andy Burnham has been caught using the Prime Ministerial private jet to fly to his first day at 'No10 North'. Taxpayers are footing a £30,000 bill for a domestic hop that spews years' worth of carbon. Typical Labour hypocrisy. #
It ain't new; I posted about it here yesterday.
worth posting many times, another grifting arse leading the country
But it gave him more time to make some fun TikToks.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
The BBC are running a disgraceful hit piece against me & will be hearing from my lawyers. It appears to be carefully coordinated & politically motivated within an hour of yet another Sunday Times story against Reform. Is it a coincidence the Met leadership are briefing against me to the BBC, just after we have confirmed our legal action against the NCA over their possible multiple criminal offences? No one has ever been in touch with me on this matter except the BBC today! The Establishment are playing dirtier than ever to try to smear & discredit Reform leaders
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
The BBC are running a disgraceful hit piece against me & will be hearing from my lawyers. It appears to be carefully coordinated & politically motivated within an hour of yet another Sunday Times story against Reform. Is it a coincidence the Met leadership are briefing against me to the BBC, just after we have confirmed our legal action against the NCA over their possible multiple criminal offences? No one has ever been in touch with me on this matter except the BBC today! The Establishment are playing dirtier than ever to try to smear & discredit Reform leaders
OT. I see BP are selling their UK solar farms to the Kuwaitis. Thats about 6% of the total Solar otput for the UK.
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
The issue though is UK consumers are paying higher prices for energy to subsidise customers in the countries of origin of these companies.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
The children of the elderly are in their 60s and mostly don't need the money. And maybe they face having the value of parent's house being swallowed up in care home fees. Could be a good option.
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
More like we have to face up to cutting the amount of money showered in benefits.
Triple lock and advantageous pensioner tax regime first up then?
OT. I see BP are selling their UK solar farms to the Kuwaitis. Thats about 6% of the total Solar otput for the UK.
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
The issue though is UK consumers are paying higher prices for energy to subsidise customers in the countries of origin of these companies.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
Agree entirely. Sadly not possible for as long as we were in the EU but it is an opportunity going forward.
This is a once a week story, somebody helpfully leaking information to keep it going.
I think someone has leaked all the data but the Sunday Times knows how to manage the release of it, slowly, week by week in small enough chunks that you this weeks story is easy to understand and builds up a narrative.
This has gone to the BBC. I said before, bit like Big Ange story, somebody close has all the jigsaw pieces and has a favourite place to leak to, but did spread it around a bit. I imagine what do media types get all excitable, an exclusive leak / scoop, so spread it around a bit and it goes from Times has a story maybe we will report it, to we are also in on the action.
The Guardian has been extensively leaked to along side the Times.
Not a single mention in the BBC report of the fact that there is an interesting by-election coming up in which Reform are the leading player. The absolute media silence continues. except that the Clacton Gazette yesterday had a report on the betting market (everyone is backing Binface), ending with a list of 34 candidates.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
As a frequent user of the Sheffield to St Pancras service, travelling in first class makes it bearable.
South Yorkshire's Mayor Oliver Coppard, has called on East Midlands Railway (EMR) to temporarily scrap First Class designations, opening up all carriages to passengers equally, so no one is left standing in overcrowded trains while seats remain unused.
The call comes after EMR announced significant service reductions on routes linking Sheffield with the East Midlands and London, following ongoing reliability and maintenance problems impacting its train fleet. The disruption has led to cancelled services, shorter trains and increased chance of overcrowding for passengers travelling into and out of South Yorkshire.
When Mrs Stodge and I journey to Derbyshire by train, we travel first class on EMR.
The new Aurora trains are decent but we had booked for the 12.02 from St Pancras last Monday to see it cancelled by email on Saturday. We went up on the 11.02 which was pretty quiet in first class. The food offering is basic but well meaning and complimentary - if only there was a Pullman operating to Derby.
Many moons ago, I used to travel a lot to Cornwall by train and the restaurant car for lunch was a delight - always second sitting for those of us going beyond Plymouth but passing through Dawlish with lunch on the way one of the forgotten treats of rail travel.
Now, GWR try their best with First - last time I went I got on at St Erth and the first food and drink offering came through at Camborne which was decent but not the same.
I fear luxury train travel, rather like the subtlety of your headers, is a thing of the past.
OT. I see BP are selling their UK solar farms to the Kuwaitis. Thats about 6% of the total Solar otput for the UK.
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
The issue though is UK consumers are paying higher prices for energy to subsidise customers in the countries of origin of these companies.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
Agree entirely. Sadly not possible for as long as we were in the EU but it is an opportunity going forward.
That will be why France only has (checks...) oh, 90% - 95% of energy production French-owned.
Or did France leave the EU while we weren't looking?
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
The BBC are running a disgraceful hit piece against me & will be hearing from my lawyers. It appears to be carefully coordinated & politically motivated within an hour of yet another Sunday Times story against Reform. Is it a coincidence the Met leadership are briefing against me to the BBC, just after we have confirmed our legal action against the NCA over their possible multiple criminal offences? No one has ever been in touch with me on this matter except the BBC today! The Establishment are playing dirtier than ever to try to smear & discredit Reform leaders
Where is the world’s smallest violin ! Reform can’t stand scrutiny after being given a free pass by the media for the last few years .
Assuming this is a bit of an establishment pile on (which presumably everyone sort of acknowledges even if they agree with it and think it's overdue), it's all a bit miss-timed isn't it? What's it in aid of? Andy has just come in, and his success definitely doesn't depend on Reform doing badly - he will rise or fall by his actions. Reform's numbers are holding up. There isn’t a GE anytime soon, and by the time there is one, this will be old old news. It's like they started and now it's all in to push it to some sort of quantifiable outcome, but there isn't one in sight.
I think Reform really did retake the initiative when Farage resigned his seat. I feel like it's spooked the cavalry into charging early.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
OT. I see BP are selling their UK solar farms to the Kuwaitis. Thats about 6% of the total Solar otput for the UK.
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
The issue though is UK consumers are paying higher prices for energy to subsidise customers in the countries of origin of these companies.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
Foreign owned businesses that own UK assets do pay tax on the profits from those activities. They hold shares in UK based companies that own the assets and sell the energy. Those companies also collect UK VAT and PAYE. There’s unlikely to be any reduction in tax take from going to foreign ownership.
That’s not to say there’s no risk of underinvestment or over-leverage, but we probably get that more from PE or infrastructure funds than sovereign wealth funds or foreign corporates.
OT. I see BP are selling their UK solar farms to the Kuwaitis. Thats about 6% of the total Solar otput for the UK.
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
The issue though is UK consumers are paying higher prices for energy to subsidise customers in the countries of origin of these companies.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
Agree entirely. Sadly not possible for as long as we were in the EU but it is an opportunity going forward.
That will be why France only has (checks...) oh, 90% - 95% of energy production French-owned.
Or did France leave the EU while we weren't looking?
1. France is happy to ignore EU rules when it suits them. Something we have (quite rightly) done our best to avoid during our membership. 2. France achieves 90% French owned energy production by it being almost entirely state owned. Stodge and I were discussing private ownership not state ownership.
As a frequent user of the Sheffield to St Pancras service, travelling in first class makes it bearable.
South Yorkshire's Mayor Oliver Coppard, has called on East Midlands Railway (EMR) to temporarily scrap First Class designations, opening up all carriages to passengers equally, so no one is left standing in overcrowded trains while seats remain unused.
The call comes after EMR announced significant service reductions on routes linking Sheffield with the East Midlands and London, following ongoing reliability and maintenance problems impacting its train fleet. The disruption has led to cancelled services, shorter trains and increased chance of overcrowding for passengers travelling into and out of South Yorkshire.
When Mrs Stodge and I journey to Derbyshire by train, we travel first class on EMR.
The new Aurora trains are decent but we had booked for the 12.02 from St Pancras last Monday to see it cancelled by email on Saturday. We went up on the 11.02 which was pretty quiet in first class. The food offering is basic but well meaning and complimentary - if only there was a Pullman operating to Derby.
Many moons ago, I used to travel a lot to Cornwall by train and the restaurant car for lunch was a delight - always second sitting for those of us going beyond Plymouth but passing through Dawlish with lunch on the way one of the forgotten treats of rail travel.
Now, GWR try their best with First - last time I went I got on at St Erth and the first food and drink offering came through at Camborne which was decent but not the same.
I fear luxury train travel, rather like the subtlety of your headers, is a thing of the past.
Of the services I use regularly LNER has the best first class offering.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
But much of the response to the higher tax rate will be long term (like changing residence - quite easy to do in the UK). So annual chopping and changing will only cause turmoil. A key tenet of effective taxation policy is that it must be stable without unexpected surprises
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
Presumably because just because you can take it doesn't mean that in the long term it's beneficial for the economy for you to do so.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Sorry, not 'why is it in brackets,' but 'why should they choose the rate quite a bit below the maximal tax take?'
Off topic, I am absolutely loving the MAGA lot/anti-woke mob thinking The Odyssey was an entirely true story.
The extent of MAGA ignorance/confusion over Homer - not to mention Ancient Greek sexual mores - is spectacular.
They probably really hate the idea that the Phaeacians - a bunch of woke proto-hippy lefties if ever I saw them - are the heroes of the story and finally get Odysseus back to Ithaca.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but just wanted to mention I really enjoyed the sci-fi animated adapation, Ulysses 31, as a kid!
As a frequent user of the Sheffield to St Pancras service, travelling in first class makes it bearable.
South Yorkshire's Mayor Oliver Coppard, has called on East Midlands Railway (EMR) to temporarily scrap First Class designations, opening up all carriages to passengers equally, so no one is left standing in overcrowded trains while seats remain unused.
The call comes after EMR announced significant service reductions on routes linking Sheffield with the East Midlands and London, following ongoing reliability and maintenance problems impacting its train fleet. The disruption has led to cancelled services, shorter trains and increased chance of overcrowding for passengers travelling into and out of South Yorkshire.
When Mrs Stodge and I journey to Derbyshire by train, we travel first class on EMR.
The new Aurora trains are decent but we had booked for the 12.02 from St Pancras last Monday to see it cancelled by email on Saturday. We went up on the 11.02 which was pretty quiet in first class. The food offering is basic but well meaning and complimentary - if only there was a Pullman operating to Derby.
Many moons ago, I used to travel a lot to Cornwall by train and the restaurant car for lunch was a delight - always second sitting for those of us going beyond Plymouth but passing through Dawlish with lunch on the way one of the forgotten treats of rail travel.
Now, GWR try their best with First - last time I went I got on at St Erth and the first food and drink offering came through at Camborne which was decent but not the same.
I fear luxury train travel, rather like the subtlety of your headers, is a thing of the past.
Of the services I use regularly LNER has the best first class offering.
OT. I see BP are selling their UK solar farms to the Kuwaitis. Thats about 6% of the total Solar otput for the UK.
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
The issue though is UK consumers are paying higher prices for energy to subsidise customers in the countries of origin of these companies.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
Agree entirely. Sadly not possible for as long as we were in the EU but it is an opportunity going forward.
That will be why France only has (checks...) oh, 90% - 95% of energy production French-owned.
Or did France leave the EU while we weren't looking?
1. France is happy to ignore EU rules when it suits them. Something we have (quite rightly) done our best to avoid during our membership. 2. France achieves 90% French owned energy production by it being almost entirely state owned. Stodge and I were discussing private ownership not state ownership.
Once something is privatised how can you ever ensure ownership remains in the UK?
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
Presumably because just because you can take it doesn't mean that in the long term it's beneficial for the economy for you to do so.
It would be highly beneficial to the economy to reduce or better yet eliminate our deficit by finding the sweet spot to maximise our tax take.
Most of the problems we face at the moment are because we are staggering under a huge mountain of debt incurred by a failure to tax to the level people wished public spending to be at, over many decades.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
The children of the elderly are in their 60s and mostly don't need the money. And maybe they face having the value of parent's house being swallowed up in care home fees. Could be a good option.
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
More like we have to face up to cutting the amount of money showered in benefits.
Triple lock and advantageous pensioner tax regime first up then?
triple lock fine , not sure what the advantageous tax system for pensioners is that you speak of. I pay many thousands a month so hardly advantageous by anyone's terms.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
I'm starting to think Burnham may actually do it and run for a snap GE in May 2027.
Too much sun?
Unless Labour get a consistent poll lead and are back to over 30% regularly in polls then I can't see Burnham calling a snap GE, they are back to only neck and neck with Reform at best now
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
I'm starting to think Burnham may actually do it and run for a snap GE in May 2027.
Too much sun?
Unless Labour get a consistent poll lead and are back to over 30% regularly in polls then I can't see Burnham calling a snap GE, they are back to only neck and neck with Reform at best now
As I told you yesterday (not that you will accept the point) those are nowcasts not forecasts.
They aren't testing real behaviour in a general election and are mid-term dissatisfaction polls, not choose the government polls.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
Presumably because just because you can take it doesn't mean that in the long term it's beneficial for the economy for you to do so.
It would be highly beneficial to the economy to reduce or better yet eliminate our deficit by finding the sweet spot to maximise our tax take.
Most of the problems we face at the moment are because we are staggering under a huge mountain of debt incurred by a failure to tax to the level people wished public spending to be at, over many decades.
The interest bill is absolutely crippling.
I agree about the problem, but not how it occurred. We have overspent over decades, not undertaxed.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
You'll know who really needs help because they'll be dead.
Another more than half empty stadium in the Hundred. No wonder I am constantly getting spammed with promo emails.
Is there a way of promoting proper red ball cricket to more people instead?
A policy of a playing field for most secondary schools (long term) would be a start.
Free tickets to U18s for County Championship matches would help. It’s always sad to see literally hundreds of people in the ground all summer.
The other major issue is that nowadays cricket is played in private schools not state schools.
Thank goodness for state grammars. We had 3 cricket pitches, and 5 rugger/footy pitches.
Yep. All the Grammar schools in Lincolnshire have very active cricket teams at all ages.
No obvious reason why grammar schools should be better able to support rugby and cricket though.
Because they don't subscribe to the 'lowest common denominator' policy of most state schools?
To play rugby and cricket, a school needs playing fields and these may well have been sold off. Part of the problem is schools need money but a bigger part is the sorts who end up running the country often don't value sport. Michael Gove nodded through a lot of sales iirc even while trying to raise academic standards. Also as schools are sold when numbers fall, then new ones opened when numbers rise, often there just is not the green space available so you end up with school as a big low-rise block.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
The children of the elderly are in their 60s and mostly don't need the money. And maybe they face having the value of parent's house being swallowed up in care home fees. Could be a good option.
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
More like we have to face up to cutting the amount of money showered in benefits.
Triple lock and advantageous pensioner tax regime first up then?
triple lock fine , not sure what the advantageous tax system for pensioners is that you speak of. I pay many thousands a month so hardly advantageous by anyone's terms.
How much do you pay in NI?
Howe much does a worker with the same gfross income pay in NI?
OT. I see BP are selling their UK solar farms to the Kuwaitis. Thats about 6% of the total Solar otput for the UK.
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
The issue though is UK consumers are paying higher prices for energy to subsidise customers in the countries of origin of these companies.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
Agree entirely. Sadly not possible for as long as we were in the EU but it is an opportunity going forward.
That will be why France only has (checks...) oh, 90% - 95% of energy production French-owned.
Or did France leave the EU while we weren't looking?
1. France is happy to ignore EU rules when it suits them. Something we have (quite rightly) done our best to avoid during our membership. 2. France achieves 90% French owned energy production by it being almost entirely state owned. Stodge and I were discussing private ownership not state ownership.
Once something is privatised how can you ever ensure ownership remains in the UK?
You pass a law which prevents foreign ownership. Canada does it for selected industries. A number of EU countries including Germany and Italy do it for Non-EU ownership of certain sectors. And of course the US does it for various sectors even before Trump came along
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
8% of total public spending is on debt interest.
One pound in twelve that we pay in taxes right now is being paid on paying back money that wasn't taken in taxes in previous years.
That's the cost of choosing too low a rate. A mountain of debt.
And we need to (a) stop adding to it and (b) ideally start reducing it.
Or to put it another way, there is a valid argument for VAT and business rates to be applied to private schools. It's that as a nation we're more skint than an investor who put everything into Truth Social stock. The fact that the smug, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, rude, stupid and openly spiteful Bridget Phillipson wittered on about 6,500 extra teachers (which we will never recruit because she has blown up what little remained of teacher training) tells us rather too much and not in a good way about political discourse in this country.
Similarly, the government should be getting every penny it can to try and sort out the mess. That means maximising tax revenue and for that they definitely should be seeking for the sweet spot.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
Presumably because just because you can take it doesn't mean that in the long term it's beneficial for the economy for you to do so.
It would be highly beneficial to the economy to reduce or better yet eliminate our deficit by finding the sweet spot to maximise our tax take.
Most of the problems we face at the moment are because we are staggering under a huge mountain of debt incurred by a failure to tax to the level people wished public spending to be at, over many decades.
The interest bill is absolutely crippling.
The interest is close to ONE HUNDRED BILLION A YEAR.
It's a phenomenal sum that exceeds the Defence and Education budgets combined.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
Presumably because just because you can take it doesn't mean that in the long term it's beneficial for the economy for you to do so.
It would be highly beneficial to the economy to reduce or better yet eliminate our deficit by finding the sweet spot to maximise our tax take.
Most of the problems we face at the moment are because we are staggering under a huge mountain of debt incurred by a failure to tax to the level people wished public spending to be at, over many decades.
The interest bill is absolutely crippling.
I agree about the problem, but not how it occurred. We have overspent over decades, not undertaxed.
The one is the flip side of the other. There is nothing inherently wrong in having high spending as long as you tax enough to cover it. Or low taxes as long as you cut spending to match.
Unfortunately, we've never had a politician honest enough to say, 'Fine, you want this spending? We therefore take x in tax and you pay it and like it.'
Or, alternatively, 'you're only willing to pay y in tax? Fine, therefore this is how much we spend and what we spend it on.'
Instead we have cakeism, sorted by borrowing based on the naive belief of ever increasing prosperity sorting it out eventually.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
8% of total public spending is on debt interest.
One pound in twelve that we pay in taxes right now is being paid on paying back money that wasn't taken in taxes in previous years.
That's the cost of choosing too low a rate. A mountain of debt.
And we need to (a) stop adding to it and (b) ideally start reducing it.
Or to put it another way, there is a valid argument for VAT and business rates to be applied to private schools. It's that as a nation we're more skint than an investor who put everything into Truth Social stock. The fact that the smug, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, rude, stupid and openly spiteful Bridget Phillipson wittered on about 6,500 extra teachers (which we will never recruit because she has blown up what little remained of teacher training) tells us rather too much and not in a good way about political discourse in this country.
Similarly, the government should be getting every penny it can to try and sort out the mess. That means maximising tax revenue and for that they definitely should be seeking for the sweet spot.
It may well be the case that currently we need to maximise tax income, but it shouldn't be the rule.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
8% of total public spending is on debt interest.
One pound in twelve that we pay in taxes right now is being paid on paying back money that wasn't taken in taxes in previous years.
That's the cost of choosing too low a rate. A mountain of debt.
And we need to (a) stop adding to it and (b) ideally start reducing it.
Or to put it another way, there is a valid argument for VAT and business rates to be applied to private schools. It's that as a nation we're more skint than an investor who put everything into Truth Social stock. The fact that the smug, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, rude, stupid and openly spiteful Bridget Phillipson wittered on about 6,500 extra teachers (which we will never recruit because she has blown up what little remained of teacher training) tells us rather too much and not in a good way about political discourse in this country.
Similarly, the government should be getting every penny it can to try and sort out the mess. That means maximising tax revenue and for that they definitely should be seeking for the sweet spot.
It may well be the case that currently we need to maximise tax income, but it shouldn't be the rule.
Here again though, we come back to 'if we ever eliminate the debt, we can transition to only raising what we need to fund our spending decisions.'
(I nearly wrote 'go back to,' but then it occurred to me to wonder when the last time we did that was, and I honestly couldn't think of one.)
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
A less certain thought - I'm sure it's right though.
Rather illogical though - find the optimum rate and then deliberately don't use it.
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
Well, I think that the costs of choosing too high a rate are very big. And also the idea that the government should be taking as much as they possibly can.. I think not. Alas of course they are taking as much as they possibly can and that's all wrong. It won't happen, and even though I think it's the right thing to do, but turn off the welfare tap for a year - see who really needs help.
You'll know who really needs help because they'll be dead.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
Presumably because just because you can take it doesn't mean that in the long term it's beneficial for the economy for you to do so.
It would be highly beneficial to the economy to reduce or better yet eliminate our deficit by finding the sweet spot to maximise our tax take.
Most of the problems we face at the moment are because we are staggering under a huge mountain of debt incurred by a failure to tax to the level people wished public spending to be at, over many decades.
The interest bill is absolutely crippling.
I agree about the problem, but not how it occurred. We have overspent over decades, not undertaxed.
The one is the flip side of the other. There is nothing inherently wrong in having high spending as long as you tax enough to cover it. Or low taxes as long as you cut spending to match.
Unfortunately, we've never had a politician honest enough to say, 'Fine, you want this spending? We therefore take x in tax and you pay it and like it.'
Or, alternatively, 'you're only willing to pay y in tax? Fine, therefore this is how much we spend and what we spend it on.'
Instead we have cakeism, sorted by borrowing based on the naive belief of ever increasing prosperity sorting it out eventually.
"My policy on cake is still pro having it and pro eating it!" - Boris, 2008.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
The children of the elderly are in their 60s and mostly don't need the money. And maybe they face having the value of parent's house being swallowed up in care home fees. Could be a good option.
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
More like we have to face up to cutting the amount of money showered in benefits.
Triple lock and advantageous pensioner tax regime first up then?
triple lock fine , not sure what the advantageous tax system for pensioners is that you speak of. I pay many thousands a month so hardly advantageous by anyone's terms.
How much do you pay in NI?
Howe much does a worker with the same gfross income pay in NI?
I paid it for 50 years, very very few will ever pay more
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Lol. It's not called the Laffer curve for nothing. Lol again
It'd be quite interesting if they varied the rate every year or so until they found out where the maximal tax take was. (And then they should choose quite a bit below that)
Bit in brackets - why?
Presumably because just because you can take it doesn't mean that in the long term it's beneficial for the economy for you to do so.
It would be highly beneficial to the economy to reduce or better yet eliminate our deficit by finding the sweet spot to maximise our tax take.
Most of the problems we face at the moment are because we are staggering under a huge mountain of debt incurred by a failure to tax to the level people wished public spending to be at, over many decades.
The interest bill is absolutely crippling.
I agree about the problem, but not how it occurred. We have overspent over decades, not undertaxed.
The one is the flip side of the other. There is nothing inherently wrong in having high spending as long as you tax enough to cover it. Or low taxes as long as you cut spending to match.
Unfortunately, we've never had a politician honest enough to say, 'Fine, you want this spending? We therefore take x in tax and you pay it and like it.'
Or, alternatively, 'you're only willing to pay y in tax? Fine, therefore this is how much we spend and what we spend it on.'
Instead we have cakeism, sorted by borrowing based on the naive belief of ever increasing prosperity sorting it out eventually.
"My policy on cake is still pro having it and pro eating it!" - Boris, 2008.
Cue jokes about Petronella, Carrie, absolutely not about any others being cakes...
I'm starting to think Burnham may actually do it and run for a snap GE in May 2027.
Too much sun?
Unless Labour get a consistent poll lead and are back to over 30% regularly in polls then I can't see Burnham calling a snap GE, they are back to only neck and neck with Reform at best now
As I told you yesterday (not that you will accept the point) those are nowcasts not forecasts.
They aren't testing real behaviour in a general election and are mid-term dissatisfaction polls, not choose the government polls.
Otherwise Burnham would be relying on massive anti Reform tactical voting even to get another majority on choose the government polls, let alone to get anywhere near the over 400 MPs Labour now has
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
Comments
Currently about 85% of total UK power generation is foreign owned.
Farage has never been one to follow the rules.
I assume there must be other big donations to either Reform or Farage directly that led to the debanking. But in that case why didn't Coutts state that as the reason?
Edit: I see TSE has made a similar point.
Here's Jeremy Hunt recalling he couldn't open a Monzo account because he was classed as a PEP.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/09/jeremy-hunt-reveals-he-was-refused-monzo-account
While it's rather more of a market than the water utilities, some of the same issues apply.
https://www.energyoasis.org.uk/blog/uk-energy-ownership
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/25/new-north-sea-oil-drilling-rosebank-faces-delay-after-gear-dropped-into-sea
...preparations for oil production at Rosebank have been hindered by the rig incident, which occurred on 18 April. No workers were hurt, but two central pieces of drilling equipment, including a safety valve, were dropped 1,100 metres on to the seabed.
The platform, hired by Adura from Norwegian company Odfjell Drilling, was taken to a shipyard in Bergen for repairs. It is now back at Rosebank but not yet operational.
Odfjell Drilling said in internal documentation that the rig could be out of action for up to four months. The Guardian understands this means that some oil wells will be completed significantly behind schedule...
Too much sun?
Too much sun?
Pull your fucking finger out.
Signed, Viewcode
(mutters "...Selling England By The Pound...")
We managed to drop 1500ft of riser and BOPs on the seafloor after the main connector failed during a hurricane. We were evacuated because it dropped across the main gas export line from the field.
It will take time to recover the riser and BOPs and also to do repairs to the rig (it is not a platform as the article states, but the Deep Sea Atlantic semi-submersible drilling rig). The whole riser system is held under great tension and when it fails there is a massive rebound that can cause significant damage to the moonpool area of the rig if you are unlucky.
Said this for ages on here, the lack of medium sized indepedent companies in the UK is one underlying issue in UK econimy.
Scottish tax hike for high earners backfires with loss of £22m
A top rate of 48p for incomes above £125,140, intended as a ‘progressive’ move to raise money for public services, has instead reduced revenues, expert analysis shows
A tax hike on high earners in Scotland has cost the public purse about £22 million in a single year, new analysis indicates.
Dan Neidle, a tax policy expert who was part of the Scottish government’s recently axed tax advisory group, said its decision to impose a 48p top rate had instead reduced revenues.
Rather than injecting money into struggling public services, as intended, evidence suggests high earners are so put off by the enormous rates, they are taking steps to avoid coming into that bracket.
An investigation by Neidle’s independent think tank, Tax Policy Associates, has found that Scotland has now probably “fallen over the Laffer curve” — the point at which tax rates become so high they cost the government money, because earners are so incentivised to avoid them.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-tax-high-earners-22m-3sb2k3wns
It appears to be carefully coordinated & politically motivated within an hour of yet another Sunday Times story against Reform.
Is it a coincidence the Met leadership are briefing against me to the BBC, just after we have confirmed our legal action against the NCA over their possible multiple criminal offences?
No one has ever been in touch with me on this matter except the BBC today!
The Establishment are playing dirtier than ever to try to smear & discredit Reform leaders
https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/2081081904736944178
Reform in 2026 don't.
It's not a question of public vs private - I've no problem with private ownership of utilities (and it is arguably more efficient) but said companies should be based in the UK and pay UK taxes.
The new Aurora trains are decent but we had booked for the 12.02 from St Pancras last Monday to see it cancelled by email on Saturday. We went up on the 11.02 which was pretty quiet in first class. The food offering is basic but well meaning and complimentary - if only there was a Pullman operating to Derby.
Many moons ago, I used to travel a lot to Cornwall by train and the restaurant car for lunch was a delight - always second sitting for those of us going beyond Plymouth but passing through Dawlish with lunch on the way one of the forgotten treats of rail travel.
Now, GWR try their best with First - last time I went I got on at St Erth and the first food and drink offering came through at Camborne which was decent but not the same.
I fear luxury train travel, rather like the subtlety of your headers, is a thing of the past.
Or did France leave the EU while we weren't looking?
What is going on???
I think Reform really did retake the initiative when Farage resigned his seat. I feel like it's spooked the cavalry into charging early.
Denmark: Personal income taxes raise approximately 24% to 26% of GDP.
United Kingdom: Personal income taxes raise approximately 10.5% of GDP.
That’s not to say there’s no risk of underinvestment or over-leverage, but we probably get that more from PE or infrastructure funds than sovereign wealth funds or foreign corporates.
2. France achieves 90% French owned energy production by it being almost entirely state owned. Stodge and I were discussing private ownership not state ownership.
India's 'cockroach' protest called off after education minister quits
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx828gj5xko
(I quite like your experiment idea, although you'd never have a stable environment to test it in.)
With obvious exceptions in the arts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N50XnT9206w
Most of the problems we face at the moment are because we are staggering under a huge mountain of debt incurred by a failure to tax to the level people wished public spending to be at, over many decades.
The interest bill is absolutely crippling.
I think sooner.
They aren't testing real behaviour in a general election and are mid-term dissatisfaction polls, not choose the government polls.
Howe much does a worker with the same gfross income pay in NI?
One pound in twelve that we pay in taxes right now is being paid on paying back money that wasn't taken in taxes in previous years.
That's the cost of choosing too low a rate. A mountain of debt.
And we need to (a) stop adding to it and (b) ideally start reducing it.
Or to put it another way, there is a valid argument for VAT and business rates to be applied to private schools. It's that as a nation we're more skint than an investor who put everything into Truth Social stock. The fact that the smug, lazy, ignorant, arrogant, rude, stupid and openly spiteful Bridget Phillipson wittered on about 6,500 extra teachers (which we will never recruit because she has blown up what little remained of teacher training) tells us rather too much and not in a good way about political discourse in this country.
Similarly, the government should be getting every penny it can to try and sort out the mess. That means maximising tax revenue and for that they definitely should be seeking for the sweet spot.
It's a phenomenal sum that exceeds the Defence and Education budgets combined.
Think of 0% tax. Obviously zero revenue for the exchequer. Think of 100% tax - that's going to be pretty like zero too.
So if you draw a line somehow between those two points, how do you do it?
A straight line would make tax a nonsense, and any line that dipped below a gain equally so.
Thus we have a line of unknown character that begins and end (0/100) at zero. I think its easy to see that that line must peak somewhere.
This is the Laffer curve argument and it's irrefutably true.
Unfortunately, we've never had a politician honest enough to say, 'Fine, you want this spending? We therefore take x in tax and you pay it and like it.'
Or, alternatively, 'you're only willing to pay y in tax? Fine, therefore this is how much we spend and what we spend it on.'
Instead we have cakeism, sorted by borrowing based on the naive belief of ever increasing prosperity sorting it out eventually.
(I nearly wrote 'go back to,' but then it occurred to me to wonder when the last time we did that was, and I honestly couldn't think of one.)