I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.
I'm not sure this is true. I think a lot of us can understand the measures and accept the need for savings, but also have concerns if it reduces the incentive to work. I think most Tories would accept a partial u-turn.
It doesn't reduce the work incentive, it increases it. Previously the pivot was 8 hours per week extra, now it is something like 2.75 hours per week extra. Under the current system someone on the minimum wage needs to work an extra 8 hours per week (an extra shift) before they begin to make more money than the withdrawal of tax credits. Now it is between 2 and three hours. I don't doubt that the withdrawal between 2.75 and 8 hours is still pretty high, but the only way to do away with the withdrawals is to do away with working tax credits altogether, which is something the government should aim to do a the beginning of the next Parliament in 2020.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
What could possibly cause that impression? And with the rate that these "girlfriends" change one cannot help but wonder just who is being used.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
In theory negative tax rates might hold up, in practice it just makes people less likely to take on more work.
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
In theory negative tax rates might hold up, in practice it just makes people less likely to take on more work.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
Generally the people who are really content in life don't feel a need to brag about it.
Totally off topic, I was reviewing an old story I had written about 5 years ago, and edited out fully 1/3 of its words as adding nothing of value, and that without revising the structure or content of the story as a next step. I thought I'd learned nothing of the worth of brevity, but I guess I have improved slightly over time!
That's a good point. I picked up a book on my Kindle the other day on spec because it was a freebie and gave up after one page as it was using 10 words where only 1 would do. The words added nothing to what was happening not to any sense of mystery or anticipation. It is I would agree a bit depressing when you go back to something and realise how much better it should have been. Bit if you can recognise that it is at least half the battle.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
The solution is having a transfer of existing stock from the hands of private landlords into the hands of owner-occupiers. Whether that is done by reducing tax allowances or having a land value tax on second property etc... is irrelevant. There is enough housing in this country for people who want to buy, the owners just need to be put in a position where it is no longer profitable to hold onto property and so that "investing" in existing stock is no longer profitable outside of the extreme cases.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
Considering that in 2020 the sums are something like 9/10 will be better off (with all the models assuming static working hours) then it's more like 2% in the election year, and given that the new system will encourage people to take on more work it will be less than 2%. Also that 20% figure includes people who receive child tax credits but not working tax credits, of which there are many.
This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.
What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The only way to deal with the housing crisis is via both supply and demand.
Yes, but that would distract from the point of the discussion - housing policy - and lead to the usual suspects wittering on about immigration
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
BUT SHE IS VERY HOT.
Also, I will earn FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS this year.
Savour that, pb-ers. FOUR HUNDRED FUCKING GRAND.
HEH.
Surprisingly, I am not that drunk.
Good on you for your success and for your tax contribution to UK PLC
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
The solution is having a transfer of existing stock from the hands of private landlords into the hands of owner-occupiers. Whether that is done by reducing tax allowances or having a land value tax on second property etc... is irrelevant. There is enough housing in this country for people who want to buy, the owners just need to be put in a position where it is no longer profitable to hold onto property and so that "investing" in existing stock is no longer profitable outside of the extreme cases.
That would entail rents going up of course, due to the reduction of rental stock.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
BUT SHE IS VERY HOT.
Also, I will earn FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS this year.
Savour that, pb-ers. FOUR HUNDRED FUCKING GRAND.
HEH.
Surprisingly, I am not that drunk.
Well done, just be honest and virtuous in paying your taxes. And not too naff or conspicuois in your consumption.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
The solution is having a transfer of existing stock from the hands of private landlords into the hands of owner-occupiers. Whether that is done by reducing tax allowances or having a land value tax on second property etc... is irrelevant. There is enough housing in this country for people who want to buy, the owners just need to be put in a position where it is no longer profitable to hold onto property and so that "investing" in existing stock is no longer profitable outside of the extreme cases.
That would entail rents going up of course, due to the reduction of rental stock.
There would also be less demand in the rental market as people who currently rent exit the market.
This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.
What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The only way to deal with the housing crisis is via both supply and demand.
Yes, but that would distract from the point of the discussion - housing policy - and lead to the usual suspects wittering on about immigration
So we should ignore half of the solution space because it involves people you don't like raising topics you do not want discussed?
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
No one wants the EU to have a border with Syria and Iraq. There will be plenty of vetos. What we are seeing is some support being lobbed to the secularists in Tukey ahead of the 1 Nov election.
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
Really .. so what ideas are ideas .. The Tories dodged a bullet. McDoom put them on the statute book like the idiot he is/was.
Now they have to be removed and that's a hell of a lot harder.. Sort of like the 50 tax rate but infinitely worse..
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
The solution is having a transfer of existing stock from the hands of private landlords into the hands of owner-occupiers. Whether that is done by reducing tax allowances or having a land value tax on second property etc... is irrelevant. There is enough housing in this country for people who want to buy, the owners just need to be put in a position where it is no longer profitable to hold onto property and so that "investing" in existing stock is no longer profitable outside of the extreme cases.
The logic of a Land Value Tax works only if it is applied to all land (and on the unapproved value). Not something imposed on second home owners. Perhaps you mean a different kind of tax?
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
I imagine that if they do that it won't just be the UK they have to worry about voting to leave. It would become the most populous country in the EU, 75m people.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
Generally the people who are really content in life don't feel a need to brag about it.
Contentment = torpor and failure. Contented people are LOSERS. Divine discontent is what you want.
I don't think I have ever been *happy*. Elated, sure, irritatingly smug, yup, euphoric for three minutes in a manic cycle which inevitable augurs awful gloom, uh-huh. Happy - no.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
I don't remember anyone saying the pasty tax would have an effect (that was just amusing).
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
The solution is having a transfer of existing stock from the hands of private landlords into the hands of owner-occupiers. Whether that is done by reducing tax allowances or having a land value tax on second property etc... is irrelevant. There is enough housing in this country for people who want to buy, the owners just need to be put in a position where it is no longer profitable to hold onto property and so that "investing" in existing stock is no longer profitable outside of the extreme cases.
The logic of a Land Value Tax works only if it is applied to all land (and on the unapproved value). Not something imposed on second home owners. Perhaps you mean a different kind of tax?
You apply it to the value of the land on which the second property is on rather than on all property which leaves us in the undesirable situation of taxing people on the houses they live in.
On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.
I'm with you. To be totally unPC, a single mum with four kids? There's five years for the memory to fade. This has to be done, it's truly a shite policy, a typical Brown sticking plaster to make a minor problem absolutely damaging.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
The solution is having a transfer of existing stock from the hands of private landlords into the hands of owner-occupiers. Whether that is done by reducing tax allowances or having a land value tax on second property etc... is irrelevant. There is enough housing in this country for people who want to buy, the owners just need to be put in a position where it is no longer profitable to hold onto property and so that "investing" in existing stock is no longer profitable outside of the extreme cases.
That would entail rents going up of course, due to the reduction of rental stock.
There would also be less demand in the rental market as people who currently rent exit the market.
You could equally say that the price of housing would not fall as more people would be buying, putting up prices again. In reality both second order effects would not make up for the primary effect. If you use tax policy to favour buying over renting, you make buying cheaper and renting more expensive.
The problem we have with housing is both markets. Both renting and buying is too expensive. That means the problem is with the overall housing stock to population ratio. The true solution is thus a combination of increasing supply and reducing demand.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
It worked fine for a long-time, but as @jeo said there is excess demand, driven by family breakdowns, more people choosing to live along and net immigration. Supply didn't respond to demand because of archaic planning laws. The result: increased prices. This was facilitated by a switch from salary based to affordability metrics by the banks - argubly sensible, but also created support for prices, changes to pension rules and the underwhelming performance of the equity indicies over the last 15 years (the FTSE100 is close to where it was in 1999)
So it's a lot more complicated than you think. (As you may have guessed, for a number of reasons I keep a close eye on the property market).
Just because the tax credit thing on Question Time has stirred the emotions of many we should remember that the picture of the little drowned boy picked up on the beach stirred many emotions and resulted in many people not using their heads. The migrant situation is turning out to be disastrous, we may soon have to admit Turkey into the EU to have some control. Any discussion on tax credits should be subject to careful analysis of the facts. To not do so could turn out to be disastrous.
I guess the Labour Party spinners are trying to coin the phrase Working Penalty like the BS of a Bedroom Tax.
I'll say what a working penalty is ... telling people that they should not work more than 16 hours a week or they'll be worse off and should be content with whatever the government is giving them and no more, that is a true working penalty and a devastating blow against social mobility.
The sooner the notion of working 16 hours a week and no more "as the jobcentre won't let me work more than 16" is history the better.
This is the root of the problem. 16 hours is a magic number of hours to work, it is both a minimum and a maximum for a whole load of benefits and allowances.
Anecdotal evidence, I was once told by an employee that she could only work 16 hrs as her husband became unemployed. If she had worked 17 then he couldn't sign on and they couldn't claim housing benefit. They were literally hundreds of pounds a week better off by her working fewer hours. It's complete madness!!!
My wife works in a school, that certainly is not unknown amongst LA's.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
The solution is having a transfer of existing stock from the hands of private landlords into the hands of owner-occupiers. Whether that is done by reducing tax allowances or having a land value tax on second property etc... is irrelevant. There is enough housing in this country for people who want to buy, the owners just need to be put in a position where it is no longer profitable to hold onto property and so that "investing" in existing stock is no longer profitable outside of the extreme cases.
Transferring the ownership of a property will not increase the number of properties, which is the real problem. Supply and Demand.
Screw the rental market about too much, and ownership will fall into the hands of a few property owning mega corporations who will be a lot less amenable to the comfort and well being of their tenants than your average private owner. Be careful what you wish for.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
As any country has a veto on accession, and as the Turkey's laws are utterly incompatible with the EUs, I am willing to offer you 100-1 on Turkey joining the EU in the next 15 years.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
No one wants the EU to have a border with Syria and Iraq. There will be plenty of vetos. What we are seeing is some support being lobbed to the secularists in Tukey ahead of the 1 Nov election.
Both major parties in the UK support Turkish entry.
This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.
What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.
What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
Why should Help to Buy be attacked? It ...
1: Makes money for the government rather than costs it. 2: Helps people who need help get their own home. 3: Encourages house building thus addressing our housing problems.
What is the downside and what would you cut or what tax would you raise to abolish it?
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
Unbelievable that anyone could have such a complete lack of understanding.
Tax Credits are a very obvious political tool to create welfare dependency and an automatic "revert to Labour" amongst voters. They do nothing to redistribute wealth, they were entirely funded by debt and have no link to the level of taxation. The main beneficiary of Tax Credits are not those who receive them but large multi-national corporations who can pay low wages which are subsidised by taxpayers.
Calling them "imperfect" misses their complete failure to address anything you claim as benefits. They certainly do fail as a method of minimum income and are massively inefficient, promoting the production of kids is the only actual outcome beyond benefit dependency. It is no wonder the nutter on QT had four kids - Labour incentivised her to have four kids.
Tax credits also fail as a way to reduce poverty, they are a broad brush but only applicable to certain demographics (good luck single men and women with no children on low wages) and create a locked in cycle of poverty with idiotic rules which promote part time work.
The only effective ways to reduce poverty are higher Minimum Wages and Citizens Income.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
I don't remember anyone saying the pasty tax would have an effect (that was just amusing).
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
I think you are seriously overestimating the number of people who will be effected by this, especially by the time 2020 rolls around. As I said before, it mostly effects people who don't work enough and have had too many kids, those who don't take their responsibilities as members of a functioning society seriously enough.
You act as if the "low paid" are one big voting bloc. They are not. Those people with aspirations beyond what they currently have won't be worried about these benefits changes, they may not even be claiming working tax credits. The subset of people who are negatively effected is small, some may have genuine cases that need to be reviewed, but the woman who was whining last night is not one of them.
I guess the Labour Party spinners are trying to coin the phrase Working Penalty like the BS of a Bedroom Tax.
I'll say what a working penalty is ... telling people that they should not work more than 16 hours a week or they'll be worse off and should be content with whatever the government is giving them and no more, that is a true working penalty and a devastating blow against social mobility.
Anecdotal evidence, I was once told by an employee that she could only work 16 hrs as her husband became unemployed. If she had worked 17 then he couldn't sign on and they couldn't claim housing benefit. They were literally hundreds of pounds a week better off by her working fewer hours. It's complete madness!!!
Quite.
Politicians of various hues have created a tangled mess of interlocking benefits, credits, taxes, student welfare and goodness knows what else. Their interactions are complex and unpredictable, and in many cases totally capricious when you cross one threshold or another. The situation is made far worse by some things being assessed on a personal level, others on a total household level, some with regard to the presence of a certain type of person in the household (e.g. if you have a granny in your annexe, the whole lot of you avoid the licence fee), and some with regard to partner's earnings. You'd have to model a couple of hundred - perhaps even a few thousand - "feasible household scenarios" to see all the plausible permutations.
At least for its intellectual and bureaucratic parsimony and obvious "fairness", there's something very strong to be said for the universal basic income.
I could not agree more a Universal basic income, is IMO the only credible solution, on a practicable level, but also and arguable more impotently, it is the embodiment of Quality before the lore.
Most welfare provisions to a grater or lesser extent punish (by removing payments) people who do the right thing: get a job - loss unemployment pay, work more hours - get less tax credits, buy you own home - don't get housing benefit, and so on.
They are also involve a lot of rules and therefore people to administer and enforce them, creating bureaucracy and always liable to mistakes, a much simpler universal payment would be fairer and cheaper to administer.
but also because people would always be better of by working harder, working more hours, getting more qualifications and therefor promotion, there would be an overall economic growth. Wonderful!
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
BUT SHE IS VERY HOT.
Also, I will earn FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS this year.
Savour that, pb-ers. FOUR HUNDRED FUCKING GRAND.
HEH.
Surprisingly, I am not that drunk.
Is that all? Really? I thought you were commercially successful as an author.
And, btw, if your girlfriend is less than half your age plus 7 it's a little creepy
The only way to deal with the housing crisis is via both supply and demand.
True, but I can't simply see the government preventing oligarchs from buying British property as an investment or limiting the ownership of second homes by weather Londoners, regardless of its benefits.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax tions and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
Generally the people who are really content in life don't feel a need to brag about it.
Contentment = torpor and failure. Contented people are LOSERS. Divine discontent is what you want.
I don't think I have ever been *happy*. Elated, sure, irritatingly smug, yup, euphoric for three minutes in a manic cycle which inevitable augurs awful gloom, uh-huh. Happy - no.
Exclusive in this week's Sunil on Sunday:
"Are thriller writers mentally ill?"
The correlations between artistic success and mental illness are a cliche, but nonetheless striking.
It would, inter alia, explain why these pernicious genetic traits persist.
Please ummm, note that the link talks about 'creativity'. It's just possible your mental health is safe. I cannot comment since I have not read any of your stories.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
It worked fine for a long-time, but as @jeo said there is excess demand, driven by family breakdowns, more people choosing to live along and net immigration. Supply didn't respond to demand because of archaic planning laws. The result: increased prices. This was facilitated by a switch from salary based to affordability metrics by the banks - argubly sensible, but also created support for prices, changes to pension rules and the underwhelming performance of the equity indicies over the last 15 years (the FTSE100 is close to where it was in 1999)
So it's a lot more complicated than you think. (As you may have guessed, for a number of reasons I keep a close eye on the property market).
You also forgot: - migration from the North of England to the South East (there are plenty of empty houses in some parts of the country) - increased second home ownership - foreign buying of (particularly London) property and probably some more things.
Interestingly, London's population has only just exceeded its post World War 2 peak.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
I don't remember anyone saying the pasty tax would have an effect (that was just amusing).
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
And in five years time if people are off tax credits altogether, able to work 40 rather than 16 hours a week, on a higher rate of pay and being taxed little ... you think they'll be angered by the Tories?
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax tions and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
Generally the people who are really content in life don't feel a need to brag about it.
Contentment = torpor and failure. Contented people are LOSERS. Divine discontent is what you want.
I don't think I have ever been *happy*. Elated, sure, irritatingly smug, yup, euphoric for three minutes in a manic cycle which inevitable augurs awful gloom, uh-huh. Happy - no.
Exclusive in this week's Sunil on Sunday:
"Are thriller writers mentally ill?"
The correlations between artistic success and mental illness are a cliche, but nonetheless striking.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
BUT SHE IS VERY HOT.
Also, I will earn FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS this year.
Savour that, pb-ers. FOUR HUNDRED FUCKING GRAND.
HEH.
Surprisingly, I am not that drunk.
Don't make me regret being one of your payees this year.
I have rather enjoyed your Tom Knox novels (except for the Cambodia one which got a bit too preachy) - they are great for whiling away a long-haul flight. Will be finishing the Templar one LHR-JFK tomorrow.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
I don't remember anyone saying the pasty tax would have an effect (that was just amusing).
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
In five years we shall find out if dislike of reductions in tax credits wins the election for Labour. To me it looks like Labour have conceded the next election already, possibly two.
It will be a new landscape in 2020, and not a battle fought on Corbyn's chosen territory. If Labour had not thrown in the towel then it possibly could have mattered, but it doesn't. Labour chose the purity of opposition.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
I don't remember anyone saying the pasty tax would have an effect (that was just amusing).
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
You tell me. How many were convinced by 12bm of welfare cuts? A lot of heat has been generated by a mass extrapolation of a single case of dubious relevance.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
It worked fine for a long-time, but as @jeo said there is excess demand, driven by family breakdowns, more people choosing to live along and net immigration. Supply didn't respond to demand because of archaic planning laws. The result: increased prices. This was facilitated by a switch from salary based to affordability metrics by the banks - argubly sensible, but also created support for prices, changes to pension rules and the underwhelming performance of the equity indicies over the last 15 years (the FTSE100 is close to where it was in 1999)
So it's a lot more complicated than you think. (As you may have guessed, for a number of reasons I keep a close eye on the property market).
Not disagreeing with the core content of your post but, as you well know, anyone who has ever received a dividend on a share knows there's more to it than "the FTSE100 is close to where it was in 1999".
It really ticks me off (though I know you know better than this) when people compare "here's what your money would have done in a savings account" vs "how well the FTSE100 has done".
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
I don't remember anyone saying the pasty tax would have an effect (that was just amusing).
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
Funnily enough. Someone in my local last night was telling me that they had to move from Potters Bar back to Borehamwood because of the 'bedroom tax' They then went on to tell me that they had found a lovely flat to rent and how much cheaper it would be. After a little gentle questioning from me they agreed that they wanted to move back and the 'bedroom tax' had sod all to do with it, but it saved them a few quid anyway.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
It worked fine for a long-time, but as @jeo said there is excess demand, driven by family breakdowns, more people choosing to live along and net immigration. Supply didn't respond to demand because of archaic planning laws. The result: increased prices. This was facilitated by a switch from salary based to affordability metrics by the banks - argubly sensible, but also created support for prices, changes to pension rules and the underwhelming performance of the equity indicies over the last 15 years (the FTSE100 is close to where it was in 1999)
So it's a lot more complicated than you think. (As you may have guessed, for a number of reasons I keep a close eye on the property market).
You also forgot: - migration from the North of England to the South East (there are plenty of empty houses in some parts of the country) - increased second home ownership - foreign buying of (particularly London) property and probably some more things.
Interestingly, London's population has only just exceeded its post World War 2 peak.
There are more homes than ever before and fewer home owners. This is what needs to be fixed. That needs to be the long term goal of the Tory party, to increase home ownership, without it they are not going to be the serious party of government in the future.
Setting aside the rights and wrongs, I have a sneaking suspicion the Tories will ride this out, thanks to the extremism of Corbyn.
The public will see a choice between nasty but probably sensible Tories and caring but certifiably insane Labour, and reluctantly conclude that The Pain Must Be Endured.
Any radical reform will produce a range of results. You cannot run any policy on the basis of pandering to small percentages at either end of that range, no more than you can write policy on the basis of someone sending an email to Corbyn. Politics is the art of the possible as much as it is anything. For the moment that rules out very little for the Tories.
There are more homes than ever before and fewer home owners. This is what needs to be fixed. That needs to be the long term goal of the Tory party, to increase home ownership, without it they are not going to be the serious party of government in the future.
While I'm all in favour of increasing home ownership, I do wonder: are the Swiss - where fewer than half of people own their own homes - actually any less happy than us?
Interestingly, there is a clear inverse correlation between home ownership rates and savings rates. People save more when then don't own their own place. In other words, high home ownership encourages you to believe in The Bank of Bricks & Morter.
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
Really .. so what ideas are ideas .. The Tories dodged a bullet. McDoom put them on the statute book like the idiot he is/was.
Now they have to be removed and that's a hell of a lot harder.. Sort of like the 50 tax rate but infinitely worse..
No, Maggie put them on the statute book, it was called Family Credit.
The idea was that it would incentivise the birthrate. Which it did. Unfortunately it tended to be the wrong people (in general terms) who were most incentivised. So it stayed as a fairly limited top up benefit.
What Brown did was politicise it by making it a fundamental income source for huge swathes of the population (while being quite happy with the prevalence of poor, stupid people popping out lots of poor, stupid children who could grow up to vote Labour).
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
No one wants the EU to have a border with Syria and Iraq. There will be plenty of vetos. What we are seeing is some support being lobbed to the secularists in Tukey ahead of the 1 Nov election.
Both major parties in the UK support Turkish entry.
But not in the immediate future. It is always a long way off. It is not going to happen in the forseable, not least because Turkey would have to change a lot itself. It couldn't continue dicriminating against Christians for example, or prevent retired North Europeans from taking over the coastline. Turkey joining the EU will change Turkey far more than it would change the EU, and thats before the veto's from many of the 28. It is not going to happen in our lifetimes.
This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.
What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The only way to deal with the housing crisis is via both supply and demand.
Yes, but that would distract from the point of the discussion - housing policy - and lead to the usual suspects wittering on about immigration
So we should ignore half of the solution space because it involves people you don't like raising topics you do not want discussed?
No, just - as I said - it would have distracted from the point of the discussion, which was a defence of Help to Buy
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
You clearly do not understand the word "tax" which rather prejudices any argument you present about "tax".
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
No one wants the EU to have a border with Syria and Iraq. There will be plenty of vetos. What we are seeing is some support being lobbed to the secularists in Tukey ahead of the 1 Nov election.
Both major parties in the UK support Turkish entry.
On topic, there will be a lot of people - myself included - wanting and expecting Osborne to hold firm. There was always going to be pain for some. Everyone knew that, Osborne more than most. having embarked on the course, you do not then backtrack just because an entirely obvious consequence has come about. This will be the Bedroom Tax all over again (an issue which seems to have disappeared in public debate): a lot of shouting but little meaningful long-term impact.
To be totally unPC, a single mum with four kids?
What's unPC about that, unless you are implying something I'm not getting.
Funnily enough, my mother was a single mum with four kids too.
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
Really .. so what ideas are ideas .. The Tories dodged a bullet. McDoom put them on the statute book like the idiot he is/was.
Now they have to be removed and that's a hell of a lot harder.. Sort of like the 50 tax rate but infinitely worse..
No, Maggie put them on the statute book, it was called Family Credit.
The idea was that it would incentivise the birthrate. Which it did. Unfortunately it tended to be the wrong people (in general terms) who were most incentivised. So it stayed as a fairly limited top up benefit.
What Brown did was politicise it by making it a fundamental income source for huge swathes of the population (while being quite happy with the prevalence of poor, stupid people popping out lots of poor, stupid children who could grow up to vote Labour).
You neglect the phenomenon of regression to the mean. Fast breeding thick people tend to have broghter children than themselves. Clever people tend to have thicker children than themselves. It is one of the engines of social mobility, and one reason why the clever try to buy advantages for their kids, such as private schools.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
No one wants the EU to have a border with Syria and Iraq. There will be plenty of vetos. What we are seeing is some support being lobbed to the secularists in Tukey ahead of the 1 Nov election.
Both major parties in the UK support Turkish entry.
I'm at a loss to understand why. I could understand the historical reasons, but now? Just can't see how it benefits the UK's national interests.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people getting hurt. They don't see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable outcome, not least because it helps entrenches a servile underclass. There's a reason there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions that involves.
Hillarious rubbish. Well actually sickening rubbish. The greatest shame that the last labour govt inflicted was to park people on benefits, losing interest in them other than as voter fodder, whilst funnelling hundreds of thousands of new EU entrants into the very jobs they the claimants needed to be occupying.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government.
I thought this was clearly the most telling remark in the post you refer to. It perfectly describes how brain numbingly awful the last Labour government was if tax credits were it's best (only?) achievement. I agree completely.
There are more homes than ever before and fewer home owners. This is what needs to be fixed. That needs to be the long term goal of the Tory party, to increase home ownership, without it they are not going to be the serious party of government in the future.
While I'm all in favour of increasing home ownership, I do wonder: are the Swiss - where fewer than half of people own their own homes - actually any less happy than us?
Interestingly, there is a clear inverse correlation between home ownership rates and savings rates. People save more when then don't own their own place. In other words, high home ownership encourages you to believe in The Bank of Bricks & Morter.
To be fair the bank of Bricks and Mortar has given far better returns with less risk than any financial product available to the average person. Why should any sane person, with the long term in mind, not invest in property?
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
No one wants the EU to have a border with Syria and Iraq. There will be plenty of vetos. What we are seeing is some support being lobbed to the secularists in Tukey ahead of the 1 Nov election.
Both major parties in the UK support Turkish entry.
I'm at a loss to understand why. I could understand the historical reasons, but now? Just can't see how it benefits the UK's national interests.
If it is not likely to happen in our lifetimes, even after all the time it has already taken, and presuming it is still something the Turks wish to move toward eventually, it seems like a no-brainer as it theoretically buys goodwill with the Turks without ever having to actually see it happen along with any negatives, and it's on such a timescale future governments of either party know they could change their minds if it ever looked likely.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
Only in monetary terms
No, I think in every possible way. Including intellect.
And REALLY HOT 27 YEAR OLD GIRLFRIEND.
If you don't stop shouting people will think you're having a mid life crisis
Generally the people who are really content in life don't feel a need to brag about it.
Contentment = torpor and failure. Contented people are LOSERS. Divine discontent is what you want.
I don't think I have ever been *happy*. Elated, sure, irritatingly smug, yup, euphoric for three minutes in a manic cycle which inevitable augurs awful gloom, uh-huh. Happy - no.
There are more homes than ever before and fewer home owners. This is what needs to be fixed. That needs to be the long term goal of the Tory party, to increase home ownership, without it they are not going to be the serious party of government in the future.
While I'm all in favour of increasing home ownership, I do wonder: are the Swiss - where fewer than half of people own their own homes - actually any less happy than us?
Interestingly, there is a clear inverse correlation between home ownership rates and savings rates. People save more when then don't own their own place. In other words, high home ownership encourages you to believe in The Bank of Bricks & Morter.
You absolutely save more if you are renting, your situation is much less secure than if you own your home. Before I bought my flat I was paid less and saved more (as a proportion of income). Now I have that security of a permanent roof over my head that I own, the need to save is lower, even in my specific case where I am looking to move into a house rather than a flat I still don't need to save too much since the rise in property values has been so bloody insane around west London that I can bank the equity, move to Highgate and not have to increase the size of the mortgage all that much. Bloody crazy. Seriously, I had my flat valued recently at £880,000 vs a purchase price of £450,000. The value has almost doubled in two years and I have done no major work to it. I can slap an extra £150k onto the mortgage and buy a nice three/four bed in Highgate. Why bother saving?
I think the difference in Switzerland is that the level of earnings are much higher than here. My girlfriend is Swiss and she worked for Manor while she was a student and earned 24/h which is about £16, to work in a department store. She did 21 hours per week and the rent on her flat was 750 per month for a one bedroom in central Basel. She didn't feel any pressure to own somewhere. Fast forward to London and we felt the pressure to buy a few years back and stretched ourselves to the limit to get our current place. It had to be done, the rent was killing us and landlords here are unscrupulous.
Unbelievable that anyone could have such a complete lack of understanding.
Tax Credits are a very obvious political tool to create welfare dependency and an automatic "revert to Labour" amongst voters. They do nothing to redistribute wealth, they were entirely funded by debt and have no link to the level of taxation. The main beneficiary of Tax Credits are not those who receive them but large multi-national corporations who can pay low wages which are subsidised by taxpayers.
Calling them "imperfect" misses their complete failure to address anything you claim as benefits. They certainly do fail as a method of minimum income and are massively inefficient, promoting the production of kids is the only actual outcome beyond benefit dependency. It is no wonder the nutter on QT had four kids - Labour incentivised her to have four kids.
Tax credits also fail as a way to reduce poverty, they are a broad brush but only applicable to certain demographics (good luck single men and women with no children on low wages) and create a locked in cycle of poverty with idiotic rules which promote part time work.
A brief history lesson. Tax credits are based on the Earned Income Tax Credit in the US introduced in 1975 by Nixon. The senate GOP, who at the time actually gave a damn about poor people, wanted a negative income tax but Democrats were concerned that it didn't incentivise people to work, so they added a work requirement. It was then expanded in 1986 under Reagan and then again by Clinton.
Now, in your world, Nixon and Reagan were trying to create "state dependence" and make voters "revert to GOP" and incentivise child-bearing. No - they were helping the poor, and help the poor in a way with relatively little state intervention, and the best way to help the poor is to give them money to make them less poor, and that's what tax credits do. And they don't fail. They work. There is plenty of evidence that the EITC works and it's a very similar policy.
And they're targeted. They are designed to lift children out of poverty. This is not a bad thing.
As a nation, we have a way of reclaiming benefit from large multinational companies - we have this thing called corporation tax. Of course, that was before it was slashed to tax-haven rates.
And large multinationals benefit most from high minimum wages, as they make it hard for small-to-medium businesses to grow and compete. Large multinationals are far less likely to be starved for capital and it's far easier for them to invest to reducing staff.
That said, In essence, tax credits and minimum wages do the same thing, they're just way of implementing basically the same policy, only one is done with a level of indirection, without the direct involvement of the government, and is far less targeted. I guess that's all great if you have a weird and ideologically-inconsistent anti-government stance and don't believe in helping poor children!
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
Really .. so what ideas are ideas .. The Tories dodged a bullet. McDoom put them on the statute book like the idiot he is/was.
Now they have to be removed and that's a hell of a lot harder.. Sort of like the 50 tax rate but infinitely worse..
No, Maggie put them on the statute book, it was called Family Credit.
The idea was that it would incentivise the birthrate. Which it did. Unfortunately it tended to be the wrong people (in general terms) who were most incentivised. So it stayed as a fairly limited top up benefit.
What Brown did was politicise it by making it a fundamental income source for huge swathes of the population (while being quite happy with the prevalence of poor, stupid people popping out lots of poor, stupid children who could grow up to vote Labour).
You neglect the phenomenon of regression to the mean. Fast breeding thick people tend to have broghter children than themselves. Clever people tend to have thicker children than themselves. It is one of the engines of social mobility, and one reason why the clever try to buy advantages for their kids, such as private schools.
Is there regression to the mean?
My assumption (perhaps wrong) is that any potential genetic source for intelligence (which I would expect exists) is going to be more prevalent amongst those who have succeeded in a socially mobile (or somewhat socially mobile) society, this while it is possible that there will be exceptions to the rule the general trend will be for inherited levels of intellect.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
I'm afraid this will be wasted on Mr Speedy who clearly doesn't understand the meaning of "tax", so will definitely struggle with some of the much longer words that you use.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
The housing market is broken, but increasingly supply won't do much to fix it. The fundamental problem is that the housing market does not operate like a normal market, as prices are dictated by the amount banks are willing to lend. Didn't we learn anything from the US housing bubble?
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
It worked fine for a long-time, but as @jeo said there is excess demand, driven by family breakdowns, more people choosing to live along and net immigration. Supply didn't respond to demand because of archaic planning laws. The result: increased prices. This was facilitated by a switch from salary based to affordability metrics by the banks - argubly sensible, but also created support for prices, changes to pension rules and the underwhelming performance of the equity indicies over the last 15 years (the FTSE100 is close to where it was in 1999)
So it's a lot more complicated than you think. (As you may have guessed, for a number of reasons I keep a close eye on the property market).
Not disagreeing with the core content of your post but, as you well know, anyone who has ever received a dividend on a share knows there's more to it than "the FTSE100 is close to where it was in 1999".
It really ticks me off (though I know you know better than this) when people compare "here's what your money would have done in a savings account" vs "how well the FTSE100 has done".
FTSE TSR Index is reasonable proxy though, although obviously should be risk adjusted.
(And, yes, I do watch the equity markets as well from time to time)
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people suffering. The right fundamentally does not see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable natural outcome, as a fundamnetla part of social darwinism, not least because it helps entrench a servile underclass with few options and opportunities. Indeed, it's not a coincidence there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions involved with oft-repeated myopic nonsense like "equality of opportunity" and "meritocracy".
HAHAHAHAHAH I'M MUCH RICHER THAN YOU.
I don't doubt it, and thanks to this government, in a few years you'll be able to afford that live-in Thai prostitute that you've always wanted. I guess that counts as "job creation", right?
And they say Labour doesn't represent the aspirational.
Rising taxes are rising taxes no matter how do you call it, in 1989 it was called the community charge, in 2015 it's called abolishing tax credits, the result is an increased tax bill under supposedly anti-tax Tory governments.
Abolishing tax credits is not raising taxes, it is reducing a benefit. The aim is to reduce the % of GDP taken by the govt.
Scandanavian levels of bdnefit require Scandanavian levels of tax. The Labour party wants to pretend it can be achieved by a tax on monocles and spats, but really it would require 5-10p on the basic rate of income tax. If they were honest they would make that case, but they do not.
Borrowing to finance current expenditure is just a tax deferred, a tax on children.
The problem is that for your average low-paid worker, they are not really going to be making technical distinctions between "benefits" and "taxes". All they will notice is that they have less money in their pocket.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
In 5 years we may well find out if it matters.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
I don't remember anyone saying the pasty tax would have an effect (that was just amusing).
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
Funnily enough. Someone in my local last night was telling me that they had to move from Potters Bar back to Borehamwood because of the 'bedroom tax' They then went on to tell me that they had found a lovely flat to rent and how much cheaper it would be. After a little gentle questioning from me they agreed that they wanted to move back and the 'bedroom tax' had sod all to do with it, but it saved them a few quid anyway.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
No one wants the EU to have a border with Syria and Iraq. There will be plenty of vetos. What we are seeing is some support being lobbed to the secularists in Tukey ahead of the 1 Nov election.
Both major parties in the UK support Turkish entry.
But not in the immediate future. It is always a long way off. It is not going to happen in the forseable, not least because Turkey would have to change a lot itself. It couldn't continue dicriminating against Christians for example, or prevent retired North Europeans from taking over the coastline. Turkey joining the EU will change Turkey far more than it would change the EU, and thats before the veto's from many of the 28. It is not going to happen in our lifetimes.
People do realise that Greek Cyprus has a veto over Turkey joining the EU, right?
And they're targeted. They are designed to lift children out of poverty. This is not a bad thing.
...
I've snipped most of your drool as it is too bereft of merit to justify the time needed to reply.
But in regards to this nugget regarding the United States, perhaps you should consider the level of child poverty in the United States before you actually claim that they offer a good model to follow.
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
Really .. so what ideas are ideas .. The Tories dodged a bullet. McDoom put them on the statute book like the idiot he is/was.
Now they have to be removed and that's a hell of a lot harder.. Sort of like the 50 tax rate but infinitely worse..
No, Maggie put them on the statute book, it was called Family Credit.
The idea was that it would incentivise the birthrate. Which it did. Unfortunately it tended to be the wrong people (in general terms) who were most incentivised. So it stayed as a fairly limited top up benefit.
What Brown did was politicise it by making it a fundamental income source for huge swathes of the population (while being quite happy with the prevalence of poor, stupid people popping out lots of poor, stupid children who could grow up to vote Labour).
You neglect the phenomenon of regression to the mean. Fast breeding thick people tend to have broghter children than themselves. Clever people tend to have thicker children than themselves. It is one of the engines of social mobility, and one reason why the clever try to buy advantages for their kids, such as private schools.
Is there regression to the mean?
My assumption (perhaps wrong) is that any potential genetic source for intelligence (which I would expect exists) is going to be more prevalent amongst those who have succeeded in a socially mobile (or somewhat socially mobile) society, this while it is possible that there will be exceptions to the rule the general trend will be for inherited levels of intellect.
There certainly is a tendency for ntelligent people to have intelligent children, but such is true for any inheritable trait, and these are all subject to regression to the mean. It is a statistical phenomenon rather than a genetic one.
It is why clever people manipulate the system in benefit to their own progeny. When we talk of social mobility we are very reluctant to talk of downward mobility. Hence coaching for grammar school entry amongst the middle classes. The prospect of our own children going to a Secondary Modern is too awful for words.
I can't see them holding firm either, but I'd like to see them try to - not that I think it impossible it would not blow up in their face, in fact I think it could, but because I'm interested to see if this time, on this issue, the emotive and anecdotal will override any arguments the government might have, as it has not in the past.
There will never be a better opportunity to get a lid on the evils of Tax Credits. If the Tories do anything, reducing their influence should be their top priority. I suspect they know this and will accept a political price to rebalance the public's state dependency levels.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government. They successfully redistributed wealth from the richest to the poorest and successfully managed to counter-act the rising tide inequality to help those in need.
Tax credits are imperfect - sadly, they apply only to people who work in a cynical fit of tabloid pandering and politics - rather than acting as a minimum income, as supported by, amongst others, Friedman and Hayek. Even so, it was a huge step in the right direction.
Of course, the modern right does not remotely care about the poor. They care more about the principle of 'state dependency' than people getting hurt. They don't see inequality as a problem, they see as a desirable outcome, not least because it helps entrenches a servile underclass. There's a reason there are so many monarchists on the right despite the apparent contradictions that involves.
Hillarious rubbish. Well actually sickening rubbish. The greatest shame that the last labour govt inflicted was to park people on benefits, losing interest in them other than as voter fodder, whilst funnelling hundreds of thousands of new EU entrants into the very jobs they the claimants needed to be occupying.
Tax credits are the single greatest accomplishment, and arguably the only major accomplishment, of the last Labour government.
I thought this was clearly the most telling remark in the post you refer to. It perfectly describes how brain numbingly awful the last Labour government was if tax credits were it's best (only?) achievement. I agree completely.
Yes, the last Labour government was generally ineffectual. The only three positive achievements come to mind and the two most significant were in the first term: tax credits, the minimum wage, and regulation of BT to fix the failed privatisation under Thatcher.
The last Labour government was far too right-wing and didn't accomplish much.
This modern Tory party needs to decide what it stands for, removes tax credits but is quite happy to give money away in help to buy schemes. The opposition is so pathetic it doesn't have the wit to hold this bunch of chancers to account.
What's odd is that Labour under Miliband and Corbyn haven't really attacked the government for Help to Buy. I just don't get why they seem happy to go along with such a policy.
The housing market is broken and needs fixing through measures to increase supply.
But in the meantime it is iniquitous that one generation should suffer the disadvantages of inflated house prices and be unable to buy.
Provided, therefore, that it is *strictly temporary* help to buy may act to reduce intergenerational unfairness
Housing seems always to be discussed as if it's a national issue which lends itself to simple national remedies. That's so much tosh which politicians kick around to try to attract the votes of the idiots who believe that to be true. Rich people live in Mayfair, I want to live in Mayfair and I want other people to pay for me to live in Mayfair because it's not right that only rich people live in Mayfair, it's my entitlement. Labour's buzz word - entitlement.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
I just can't see that happening.
So in order to prevent Syrian and other migrants currently in Turkey from coming to the EU the EU wants to allow the Turks in Turkey to come to the EU instead.
Anyone who thinks the Govt will cave in is mistaken. They have 4.5 yrs to ride this out.. and they will. Tax credits were a ridiculous idea by McDoom.. hence a bad idea in the first place , and a bribe to the electorate.
[added emphasis]
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
Really .. so what ideas are ideas .. The Tories dodged a bullet. McDoom put them on the statute book like the idiot he is/was.
Now they have to be removed and that's a hell of a lot harder.. Sort of like the 50 tax rate but infinitely worse..
No, Maggie put them on the statute book, it was called Family Credit.
The idea was that it would incentivise the birthrate. Which it did. Unfortunately it tended to be the wrong people (in general terms) who were most incentivised. So it stayed as a fairly limited top up benefit.
What Brown did was politicise it by making it a fundamental income source for huge swathes of the population (while being quite happy with the prevalence of poor, stupid people popping out lots of poor, stupid children who could grow up to vote Labour).
You neglect the phenomenon of regression to the mean. Fast breeding thick people tend to have broghter children than themselves. Clever people tend to have thicker children than themselves. It is one of the engines of social mobility, and one reason why the clever try to buy advantages for their kids, such as private schools.
Clearly Albert was cleverer than Mr and Mrs Einstein. I do not think there is anything special about your claim. We could hardly expect Alberts children to solve the problems he left behind. But you ignore the debilitating effects of well, culture and brainwashing and the subsequent reversion to type. Abbott bought an education for her children because the BBC money allowed her to afford it and she saw the damage that labour's policies were doing. It's not that the offspring of clever parents are not capable, its that the parents care and can afford.
I have read today that the EU is thinking of giving Turkey an accelerated accession to the EU as part of the migrant crisis deal. That will entail a crisis of millions of Turks moving West instead.
I just can't see that happening.
It's not going to happen.
I'd estimate the chance of the EU collapsing in the next two decades as, what, 15%.
I'd reckon the chance of Turkey joining in that time period as being at least an order of magnitude less. Firstly, Turks don't want to join the EU. Secondly, it would be vetoed by - at the very least - Greece. Not to mention: North Cyprus, and the fact that large chunks of Turkish law are incompatible with EU membership.
Comments
Actually, tax credits were originally a right wing idea, so Osborne will have intellectual cover for any U-turn. It (or they) can be seen as an instantiation of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
Edit: the idea is that it makes work more attractive for the poor, and subsidises companies to create wealth.
Property bubbles are a huge problem. It swallows any increases in pay whole, creates an undesirable redistribution of wealth, breaks up communities and limits job opportunities. And, as the financial crisis proved, it's incredibly dangerous for an economy. It certainly doesn't help that long-term super-low interest rates have made investing in property look attractive as a long-term investment.
There needs to be a political solution to preventing property bubbles but I don't know exactly what needs to be done. Limiting the amount banks can lend, perhaps, but that may just end up benefiting the wealthiest of landlords.
A reminder that, in most marginal constituencies, the % of people on tax credits (more than 20% of households in some) outstrips the Tory majority.
It is I would agree a bit depressing when you go back to something and realise how much better it should have been. Bit if you can recognise that it is at least half the battle.
A few years ago we were told that the "pasty tax" "granny tax" and "bedroom tax" would propel Labour back to power.
How well did that work out?
Now they have to be removed and that's a hell of a lot harder.. Sort of like the 50 tax rate but infinitely worse..
It would become the most populous country in the EU, 75m people.
"Are thriller writers mentally ill?"
Some people did wishfully hope the bedroom tax would have an effect, and it turned out they were wrong - but the difference is that most people who were affected by that never voted Tory in the first place. OTOH, many low-paid workers did vote Tory this year because they were convinced by the Tories' "party of hard-working strivers" rhetoric.
Enjoyable first installment of new series of Portillo's Great Continental Railway Journeys, Sofia in Bulgaria to Istanbul, Turkey.
Take an odd number, square it, and then divide it by eight. The remainder is always 1.
That is n^2 mod 8 = 1, where n is odd.
The problem we have with housing is both markets. Both renting and buying is too expensive. That means the problem is with the overall housing stock to population ratio. The true solution is thus a combination of increasing supply and reducing demand.
So it's a lot more complicated than you think. (As you may have guessed, for a number of reasons I keep a close eye on the property market).
Any discussion on tax credits should be subject to careful analysis of the facts. To not do so could turn out to be disastrous.
It really is perverse.
Screw the rental market about too much, and ownership will fall into the hands of a few property owning mega corporations who will be a lot less amenable to the comfort and well being of their tenants than your average private owner. Be careful what you wish for.
1: Makes money for the government rather than costs it.
2: Helps people who need help get their own home.
3: Encourages house building thus addressing our housing problems.
What is the downside and what would you cut or what tax would you raise to abolish it?
Tax Credits are a very obvious political tool to create welfare dependency and an automatic "revert to Labour" amongst voters. They do nothing to redistribute wealth, they were entirely funded by debt and have no link to the level of taxation. The main beneficiary of Tax Credits are not those who receive them but large multi-national corporations who can pay low wages which are subsidised by taxpayers.
Calling them "imperfect" misses their complete failure to address anything you claim as benefits. They certainly do fail as a method of minimum income and are massively inefficient, promoting the production of kids is the only actual outcome beyond benefit dependency. It is no wonder the nutter on QT had four kids - Labour incentivised her to have four kids.
Tax credits also fail as a way to reduce poverty, they are a broad brush but only applicable to certain demographics (good luck single men and women with no children on low wages) and create a locked in cycle of poverty with idiotic rules which promote part time work.
The only effective ways to reduce poverty are higher Minimum Wages and Citizens Income.
You act as if the "low paid" are one big voting bloc. They are not. Those people with aspirations beyond what they currently have won't be worried about these benefits changes, they may not even be claiming working tax credits. The subset of people who are negatively effected is small, some may have genuine cases that need to be reviewed, but the woman who was whining last night is not one of them.
And, btw, if your girlfriend is less than half your age plus 7 it's a little creepy
- migration from the North of England to the South East (there are plenty of empty houses in some parts of the country)
- increased second home ownership
- foreign buying of (particularly London) property
and probably some more things.
Interestingly, London's population has only just exceeded its post World War 2 peak.
"All love is a form of suicide"?
Seriously??
Squaring those would give 1, 9 (which is 1 again mod 8), and then 9 and 1 again.
The new, kinder more mature politics… an email sent to the 21MPs who abstained. http://t.co/QcKW5A2gmC
I have rather enjoyed your Tom Knox novels (except for the Cambodia one which got a bit too preachy) - they are great for whiling away a long-haul flight. Will be finishing the Templar one LHR-JFK tomorrow.
It will be a new landscape in 2020, and not a battle fought on Corbyn's chosen territory. If Labour had not thrown in the towel then it possibly could have mattered, but it doesn't. Labour chose the purity of opposition.
It really ticks me off (though I know you know better than this) when people compare "here's what your money would have done in a savings account" vs "how well the FTSE100 has done".
They then went on to tell me that they had found a lovely flat to rent and how much cheaper it would be.
After a little gentle questioning from me they agreed that they wanted to move back and the 'bedroom tax' had sod all to do with it, but it saved them a few quid anyway.
1* 1 = 1. Divide by 8. 0, with 1 remainder
3 * 3 = 9. Divide by 8. 1, with 1 remainder
5 * 5 =25: 3, with 1 remainder
7 * 7 = 49: 6, with 1 remainder
etc etc
Interestingly, there is a clear inverse correlation between home ownership rates and savings rates. People save more when then don't own their own place. In other words, high home ownership encourages you to believe in The Bank of Bricks & Morter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11937376/Tory-voter-who-confronted-minister-over-tax-credit-cuts-may-not-be-affected-by-reforms.html
And, what is the children's father contributing?
The idea was that it would incentivise the birthrate. Which it did. Unfortunately it tended to be the wrong people (in general terms) who were most incentivised. So it stayed as a fairly limited top up benefit.
What Brown did was politicise it by making it a fundamental income source for huge swathes of the population (while being quite happy with the prevalence of poor, stupid people popping out lots of poor, stupid children who could grow up to vote Labour).
Squaring any of those will always give a number 1 above a multiple of 8.
Thank you MBE!
Funnily enough, my mother was a single mum with four kids too.
I thought this was clearly the most telling remark in the post you refer to. It perfectly describes how brain numbingly awful the last Labour government was if tax credits were it's best (only?) achievement. I agree completely.
I think the difference in Switzerland is that the level of earnings are much higher than here. My girlfriend is Swiss and she worked for Manor while she was a student and earned 24/h which is about £16, to work in a department store. She did 21 hours per week and the rent on her flat was 750 per month for a one bedroom in central Basel. She didn't feel any pressure to own somewhere. Fast forward to London and we felt the pressure to buy a few years back and stretched ourselves to the limit to get our current place. It had to be done, the rent was killing us and landlords here are unscrupulous.
Now, in your world, Nixon and Reagan were trying to create "state dependence" and make voters "revert to GOP" and incentivise child-bearing. No - they were helping the poor, and help the poor in a way with relatively little state intervention, and the best way to help the poor is to give them money to make them less poor, and that's what tax credits do. And they don't fail. They work. There is plenty of evidence that the EITC works and it's a very similar policy.
And they're targeted. They are designed to lift children out of poverty. This is not a bad thing.
As a nation, we have a way of reclaiming benefit from large multinational companies - we have this thing called corporation tax. Of course, that was before it was slashed to tax-haven rates.
And large multinationals benefit most from high minimum wages, as they make it hard for small-to-medium businesses to grow and compete. Large multinationals are far less likely to be starved for capital and it's far easier for them to invest to reducing staff.
That said, In essence, tax credits and minimum wages do the same thing, they're just way of implementing basically the same policy, only one is done with a level of indirection, without the direct involvement of the government, and is far less targeted. I guess that's all great if you have a weird and ideologically-inconsistent anti-government stance and don't believe in helping poor children!
My assumption (perhaps wrong) is that any potential genetic source for intelligence (which I would expect exists) is going to be more prevalent amongst those who have succeeded in a socially mobile (or somewhat socially mobile) society, this while it is possible that there will be exceptions to the rule the general trend will be for inherited levels of intellect.
(And, yes, I do watch the equity markets as well from time to time)
But in regards to this nugget regarding the United States, perhaps you should consider the level of child poverty in the United States before you actually claim that they offer a good model to follow.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/regrmean.php
It is why clever people manipulate the system in benefit to their own progeny. When we talk of social mobility we are very reluctant to talk of downward mobility. Hence coaching for grammar school entry amongst the middle classes. The prospect of our own children going to a Secondary Modern is too awful for words.
The last Labour government was far too right-wing and didn't accomplish much.
Progressives eh.......
Eh??
But you ignore the debilitating effects of well, culture and brainwashing and the subsequent reversion to type.
Abbott bought an education for her children because the BBC money allowed her to afford it and she saw the damage that labour's policies were doing. It's not that the offspring of clever parents are not capable, its that the parents care and can afford.
I'd estimate the chance of the EU collapsing in the next two decades as, what, 15%.
I'd reckon the chance of Turkey joining in that time period as being at least an order of magnitude less. Firstly, Turks don't want to join the EU. Secondly, it would be vetoed by - at the very least - Greece. Not to mention: North Cyprus, and the fact that large chunks of Turkish law are incompatible with EU membership.