So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
There are many of us who just pay tax and NI and receive no benefits.
Not on £14K, generally.
A single person with no savings and no children will not get any Universal Credit at £14k.
There is obviously a gap in the political market for a party to stand up for "lazy single people" since every other party tries to cater for "hard working families".
Finally someone to speak to my demographic.
How about you and I form this new party together? I'd have to quit my job, but I daresay I could survive that.
It sounds a great idea, but when standing up for the lazy, how could anyone have the effort to lead? Quite the conundrum.
The Keith Waterhouse solution - neglect something else really important while doing it, so you can honestly say you're not working.
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
So Richard do tell me the error in these figures. With the huge (and unnecessary) increase in the 40% threshhold anyone over £46k will benefit much more from the income tax changes.
The error is that no-one remotely sane would cherry-pick one just one tax/benefit to analyse the distributional effect of a budget.
Don't you believe it! Of all the things that the Chancellor has done, that was the one that caught my eye. I appreciate that the threshold was held by Osborne for a number of years, but I'd suggest increasing it by as much as he has is a mistake.
It's certainly a surprisingly big change, yes. A mistake? Dunno. In electoral terms probably not - it most helps the upper-middle-range income families, who have been pretty badly hit relative to other groups in recent years.
The cumulative effect of measures since the Autumn statement 2016 looks pretty sensible:
Yet again we have the fantasy that there's anything "middle" about an income of £46k. £46k was the 86th centile in 2015/16. I get fed up of those on such incomes bleating about poorly off they are. Get into the real world.
£46k in the South East means a pretty frugal lifestyle, especially if you have a family to support.
Not everyone in the South East works in the City, the average South East salary is £31,881
So councils are to get £650m extra in this year's settlement but which Council gets how much isn't of course stated. The £84m for Childrens Services is spread over five years so is a drop in the ocean. £420m will help with potholes but again where will it go and how does it stack against the estimated £8 billion total repair bill?
A lot of this largesse is a political gimmick - no one seriously believes it does any more than kick the can down the road for another year and the scale of the financial pressures facing some authorities will be exposed when budgets are set in the early part of next year and of course for many District and Borough Councils it's election time in May 2019..
If this budget unravels I fear it will be in the local government sphere. The pips started squeezing there some time ago and the sums in the budget are sticking plaster level. It surprises me that the Tories have not more grief about Tory led councils going bust. Sooner or later this is going to become a story.
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
If it's a person/cause you like, you barely register their involvement, whereas if it's one you dislike, you think "what a tw*t"
Polling by the Democrats now indicate the Trump fightback has stalled and the Blues are surging ahead-Michigan-Dems +15 Ohio +8 Pennsylvania +15 North Carolina +5 Wisconsin +11.
The next polling on the 5 Red seats could be revealing.The Blues are 4-1 with Betfair to take Texas with GOP as low as 1-10.
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
If it's a person/cause you like, you barely register their involvement, whereas if it's one you dislike, you think "what a tw*t"
I find celebrity endorsements pointless. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take any notice of anything a celebrity says, I have a mind of my own.
Indeed the mute button is applied very quickly whenever they turn up
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
If it's a person/cause you like, you barely register their involvement, whereas if it's one you dislike, you think "what a tw*t"
I find celebrity endorsements pointless. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take any notice of anything a celebrity says, I have a mind of my own.
Indeed the mute button is applied very quickly whenever they turn up
Many celebrities are charismatic, they can theoretically be effective at putting across a political message so fair enough if they want to do so. But a lot of the time it is just regular political messaging delivered hamfistedly, in a 'I was raised to be decent, so I vote x' kind of way, which is just lame. Then you get the overly passionate ones who are just regular voters like us, spouting misinformed nonsense half the time but with a megaphone due to their status.
Polling by the Democrats now indicate the Trump fightback has stalled and the Blues are surging ahead-Michigan-Dems +15 Ohio +8 Pennsylvania +15 North Carolina +5 Wisconsin +11.
The next polling on the 5 Red seats could be revealing.The Blues are 4-1 with Betfair to take Texas with GOP as low as 1-10.
Some of these must be Governor races - there is no senate election in NC
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
If it's a person/cause you like, you barely register their involvement, whereas if it's one you dislike, you think "what a tw*t"
I find celebrity endorsements pointless. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take any notice of anything a celebrity says, I have a mind of my own.
Indeed the mute button is applied very quickly whenever they turn up
Many celebrities are charismatic, they can theoretically be effective at putting across a political message so fair enough if they want to do so. But a lot of the time it is just regular political messaging delivered hamfistedly, in a 'I was raised to be decent, so I vote x' kind of way, which is just lame. Then you get the overly passionate ones who are just regular voters like us, spouting misinformed nonsense half the time but with a megaphone due to their status.
Advertisers use them because they work. Certainly not on a sophisticated, interested audience, but by creating brand awareness and image for your average casual voter.
Polling by the Democrats now indicate the Trump fightback has stalled and the Blues are surging ahead-Michigan-Dems +15 Ohio +8 Pennsylvania +15 North Carolina +5 Wisconsin +11.
The next polling on the 5 Red seats could be revealing.The Blues are 4-1 with Betfair to take Texas with GOP as low as 1-10.
If the Dems do that well in swing states, the writing is on the wall for the Donald.
Polling by the Democrats now indicate the Trump fightback has stalled and the Blues are surging ahead-Michigan-Dems +15 Ohio +8 Pennsylvania +15 North Carolina +5 Wisconsin +11.
The next polling on the 5 Red seats could be revealing.The Blues are 4-1 with Betfair to take Texas with GOP as low as 1-10.
If the Dems do that well in swing states, the writing is on the wall for the Donald.
Better make sure the writing is of short words then, so he'll be able to follow it. #easyTrumpJokes
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
If it's a person/cause you like, you barely register their involvement, whereas if it's one you dislike, you think "what a tw*t"
I find celebrity endorsements pointless. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take any notice of anything a celebrity says, I have a mind of my own.
Indeed the mute button is applied very quickly whenever they turn up
Many celebrities are charismatic, they can theoretically be effective at putting across a political message so fair enough if they want to do so. But a lot of the time it is just regular political messaging delivered hamfistedly, in a 'I was raised to be decent, so I vote x' kind of way, which is just lame. Then you get the overly passionate ones who are just regular voters like us, spouting misinformed nonsense half the time but with a megaphone due to their status.
Yes - but they do nothing for me and never have done
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
If it's a person/cause you like, you barely register their involvement, whereas if it's one you dislike, you think "what a tw*t"
I find celebrity endorsements pointless. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take any notice of anything a celebrity says, I have a mind of my own.
Indeed the mute button is applied very quickly whenever they turn up
Many celebrities are charismatic, they can theoretically be effective at putting across a political message so fair enough if they want to do so. But a lot of the time it is just regular political messaging delivered hamfistedly, in a 'I was raised to be decent, so I vote x' kind of way, which is just lame. Then you get the overly passionate ones who are just regular voters like us, spouting misinformed nonsense half the time but with a megaphone due to their status.
Advertisers use them because they work. Certainly not on a sophisticated, interested audience, but by creating brand awareness and image for your average casual voter.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
Not least because according to the BBC calculator I am another £20 a month worse off, even before I get to pay my extra tariffs for living in Scotland.
But most of all because if you choose just one tax or spending measure, you can make up any result you like.
Effect of change to Universal Credit:
Family on £14K: +£630 Banker on £200K: £0.
And, of course, those earning £100k get no benefit from the personal allowance change anyway
Polling by the Democrats now indicate the Trump fightback has stalled and the Blues are surging ahead-Michigan-Dems +15 Ohio +8 Pennsylvania +15 North Carolina +5 Wisconsin +11.
The next polling on the 5 Red seats could be revealing.The Blues are 4-1 with Betfair to take Texas with GOP as low as 1-10.
If the Dems do that well in swing states, the writing is on the wall for the Donald.
What might do for him in the end is the coastal boom. The rust belt that carried him to victory is a virtual bystander as the deep blue coasts’ economies skyrocket.
So income tax changes for 2019/20 Half average earnings (£14k) saving £130 pa Average earnings (£28k) saving £130 pa Twice average earnings (£56k) (97th centile) saving £860 pa
Well austerity might be over for a few @Conservatives for the few not the many
What a spectacularly silly post.
Not least because according to the BBC calculator I am another £20 a month worse off, even before I get to pay my extra tariffs for living in Scotland.
But most of all because if you choose just one tax or spending measure, you can make up any result you like.
Effect of change to Universal Credit:
Family on £14K: +£630 Banker on £200K: £0.
And, of course, those earning £100k get no benefit from the personal allowance change anyway
£125k actually. The Peraonal Allowance (now £12500) is reduced by £1 for every £2 over £100k.
And they will benefit from the higher rate change of course.
Polling by the Democrats now indicate the Trump fightback has stalled and the Blues are surging ahead-Michigan-Dems +15 Ohio +8 Pennsylvania +15 North Carolina +5 Wisconsin +11.
The next polling on the 5 Red seats could be revealing.The Blues are 4-1 with Betfair to take Texas with GOP as low as 1-10.
If the Dems do that well in swing states, the writing is on the wall for the Donald.
You should be cautious over interpreting midterm results as there can be massive local factors. Massachusetts is overwhelmingly blue but is very likely to re-elect a Republican governor (albeit a moderate one)
I neither support nor oppose celebrity involvement in politics; they're people like any other. I do think it can be counter productive, particularly if the endorser is an actor, since no matter how sincere you cannot help but question their supposed passion since their job is to fake such things.
If it's a person/cause you like, you barely register their involvement, whereas if it's one you dislike, you think "what a tw*t"
I find celebrity endorsements pointless. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take any notice of anything a celebrity says, I have a mind of my own.
Indeed the mute button is applied very quickly whenever they turn up
The Halo Effect is a common unconscious bias. That if you like someone for any one reason, everything else about them starts looking positive (and vice versa). The reverse was seen this summer after Elon Musk shat the bed spectacularly on Twitter - you got all sorts of people doing down everything he'd done or everything about him.
As a species, we just love things to be clearcut: goodies are attractive and always noble and good at everything and with great judgement; baddies are ugly and always malevolent and bad at everything and have terrible judgement. This is just an offshoot of that: find someone regarded by many as a goodie and get them to say something you want.
It's always seemed like the worst job in the world to me. I have plenty of shipmates who went down that route and it combined all of the drawbacks of military aviation (shit pay, disrupted home life) with none of the compensations (camaraderie, excitement, sense of purpose).
His toilet related puns. Awful. Really not sure where the adult stuff comes from.
All very well for you men. You can go and pee anywhere - and a few weeks ago late at night I saw a man openly relieving himself in front of a Waitrose, without even making any attempt to be discreet, for God’s sake! - but we ladies can’t and don’t want to have to go into a coffee shop and buy their bloody awful cappuccinos just to use the loo.
Do what the rest of us do - go into a pub and use their loo without buying anything
I always feel that I'm taking the piss when I do that.
Comments
https://www.adzuna.co.uk/jobs/salaries/south-east-england
'We pay £350 million a week to the EU. Let's give a tax cut to the better off instead'
Ohio +8
Pennsylvania +15
North Carolina +5
Wisconsin +11.
The next polling on the 5 Red seats could be revealing.The Blues are 4-1 with Betfair to take Texas with GOP as low as 1-10.
Indeed the mute button is applied very quickly whenever they turn up
Why should we have to put up with a NFL marked and damaged pitch
And they will benefit from the higher rate change of course.
That if you like someone for any one reason, everything else about them starts looking positive (and vice versa).
The reverse was seen this summer after Elon Musk shat the bed spectacularly on Twitter - you got all sorts of people doing down everything he'd done or everything about him.
As a species, we just love things to be clearcut: goodies are attractive and always noble and good at everything and with great judgement; baddies are ugly and always malevolent and bad at everything and have terrible judgement. This is just an offshoot of that: find someone regarded by many as a goodie and get them to say something you want.