It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
You've convinced me, Seth. Moving the fam to North Korea ASAP
I am not trying to convince you of anything.
I am suggesting that spending a specific amount of time at work, if it is an equal amount of time whatever the job, is an equalising factor.
I find it more difficult to say one job is easier than another as I think that is a matter of opinion.
According to HR review the ten most stressful jobs are in order
Police officer, sergeant or below. Social Workers. Welfare or housing workers. Community nurses. Other nurses. Higher education teachers. Primary education teachers. Secondary education teachers. Human resource managers. National government administration jobs.
I found that on a website.
However other sites may say being a soldier is more stressful, or an airline pilot, or a construction worker, or a firefighter, or a chef.
As you may imagine a lot of the above is about opinion as to which jobs may be hard or which jobs may be easy or more or less stressful.
My argument is not about comparing jobs but comparing hours worked, because hours worked is not really about opinion.
I ran the game and kept the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. It could be clawed back for well off pensioners via the tax system.
The threshold for pension credit is so low at 201.05, that anyone who has the new state pension of £221.20 per week wouldn't qualify for the winter fuel allowance. If that is their only income, they will struggle to meet their bills, especially so, now that the winter energy cap has been raised by 10%.
A pensioner on such a low income is likely to be at home all day and need the heating on for longer, so will have to make a choice between heating and eating, that is dreadful for a supposedly rich country.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
Attendance is not the primary measure.
But to the wider point I think you are really describing minimum wage being of an insufficient value currently.
I ran the game and kept the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. It could be clawed back for well off pensioners via the tax system.
The threshold for pension credit is so low at 201.05, that anyone who has the new state pension of £221.20 per week wouldn't qualify for the winter fuel allowance. If that is their only income, they will struggle to meet their bills, especially so, now that the winter energy cap has been raised by 10%.
A pensioner on such a low income is likely to be at home all day and need the heating on for longer, so will have to make a choice between hearing and eating, that is dreadful for a supposedly rich country.
I ran the game and kept the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. It could be clawed back for well off pensioners via the tax system.
The threshold for pension credit is so low at 201.05, that anyone who has the new state pension of £221.20 per week wouldn't qualify for the winter fuel allowance. If that is their only income, they will struggle to meet their bills, especially so, now that the winter energy cap has been raised by 10%.
A pensioner on such a low income is likely to be at home all day and need the heating on for longer, so will have to make a choice between hearing and eating, that is dreadful for a supposedly rich country.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
Why would anyone bother to train for 10+ years to be a brain surgeon, or go to university, or even bother with studying at school? Why would the creators of wealth bother to risk their money (that they wouldn't have in your world anyway) to create jobs?
Should there be a universal income minimum that is sufficient to provide food, warmth, shelter and the other basic needs? Yes of course, nobody would disagree with that but to have that income as the minimum and maximum would simply not work.
You say 'the way the economy is run is related to the way society is run' - no shit Sherlock. That's what happens in a democracy and the only way your world would be possible (still not right though) would be with a totalitarian regime - and even then corruption would make sure the 'philosopher Kings' got the biggest slice of the action.
Surely it's a matter of supply and demand. I'm pretty sure there ain't as many qualified brain surgeons as there are qualified security guards, so the pay reflects that, as well as other factors such as: The amount of training required The stress levels involved And so on
As a security guard gains more qualifications (such as first aid, CCTV operation, etc.), the pool of qualified candidates shrinks, so the pay reflects that. If there was a field within the UK private security sector that required six years of intensive training, followed by a couple of years on-the-job training, I imagine their salary would be more comparable to a brain surgeon’s.
I remember going on a distillery tour years ago, though I can't recall if it was maybe Cognac or Cointreau, where I'm pretty sure they mentioned that the taster needs something like 15 years of training, and they always have 2 or 3 people in training to replace the chief taster when they retire. The point is, compared to a brain surgeon, the importance of their role is relatively minor, but they require more than double the training. Perhaps more importantly, the pool of qualified people is tiny in comparison. It would be interesting to know what kind of salary they're on.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
Why would anyone bother to train for 10+ years to be a brain surgeon, or go to university, or even bother with studying at school? Why would the creators of wealth bother to risk their money (that they wouldn't have in your world anyway) to create jobs?
Should there be a universal income minimum that is sufficient to provide food, warmth, shelter and the other basic needs? Yes of course, nobody would disagree with that but to have that income as the minimum and maximum would simply not work.
You say 'the way the economy is run is related to the way society is run' - no shit Sherlock. That's what happens in a democracy and the only way your world would be possible (still not right though) would be with a totalitarian regime - and even then corruption would make sure the 'philosopher Kings' got the biggest slice of the action.
I agree with a lot of this. I think that there is a debate to be had regarding whether having a more equal world means totalitarianism. The counter argument is usually about what people describe as ‘human nature’, and to me using persuasion to influence human nature is the way to go, backed up by ‘democratically’ agreed rules. Your point about ‘bothering’ to learn stuff is one I disagree with. I think people are motivated to learn stuff not only by money. I once met somebody (trust me this is true) who was the world expert in European primroses, very enthusiastic about them, but there was no money in it.
It is just a bit of fun but what it does show is that to raise money you have to make decisions that are going to be unpopular somewhere if you want to stay within fiscal rules. Where there is some leeway is you could change the fiscal rules. Currently, if you borrow x to gain y, the number factored in is x, and it doesn't matter what y is as long as it is bigger than x. But if you instead look at y, your return on the investment, x can be higher and stay within your fiscal rules. This actually makes more sense as long as you are confident y is going to be larger. X has to be for something that promotes growth, not for subsidising creaking public services though and indeed there is a limit to what x can be to maintain confidence.
What austerity did was shrink the economy so you don't get growth, and with the economy constantly shrinking, you never reach your savings target, but if you do increase x, that is still borrowing and unlike in 2010, interest rates mean it is costly so you have to get it right. I believe the fuss the winter fuel payment cut has created is what the chancellor wants. If you want to give the message that you are willing to be tough and stick to things despite the fallout, those with the money may have more faith to invest in the country if the something you stick to is deeply unpopular. That is why, even if some money was found behind the sofa, the policy is unlikely to be changed IMO.
Not very Labour some would say, but I think they believe they are administering the equivalent of chemotherapy to the country. Maybe the politics of what you do when/if you get out of the mire is what the difference is. But any party in power would have no option but to go for growth. Liz Truss made that a cornerstone of her policies but that backfired because she couldn't take the markets with her. That is why keeping to the fiscal rules is so important.
They weren't tough with the pay rises they awarded to junior doctors and train drivers though. They may or may not have been deserved, but they've widened the fiscal gap.
That's yet another quandary in managing the public finances...
But what they did was implement the recommendations of the pay review bodies which were made during the last Government. The sort of thing MPs hide behind when they are given a rise. The alternative is strikes which damages the economy and the perception of the country from potential investors. There is a calculation to be done to the overall cost when you look at the cost of the pay settlement and the cost to the economy. I have tried not to be political here, just stating a fact. It doesn't negate your point completely but it comes down to a judgement I suppose.
What should be clear to most people that this Government are not acting like a Labour Government, and a Tory Government could easily do the same things. They are going for growth and are willing to take the hit now but of course, they do need things to start getting better at some point before the next election.
Surely it's a matter of supply and demand. I'm pretty sure there ain't as many qualified brain surgeons as there are qualified security guards, so the pay reflects that, as well as other factors such as: The amount of training required The stress levels involved And so on
As a security guard gains more qualifications (such as first aid, CCTV operation, etc.), the pool of qualified candidates shrinks, so the pay reflects that. If there was a field within the UK private security sector that required six years of intensive training, followed by a couple of years on-the-job training, I imagine their salary would be more comparable to a brain surgeon’s.
I remember going on a distillery tour years ago, though I can't recall if it was maybe Cognac or Cointreau, where I'm pretty sure they mentioned that the taster needs something like 15 years of training, and they always have 2 or 3 people in training to replace the chief taster when they retire. The point is, compared to a brain surgeon, the importance of their role is relatively minor, but they require more than double the training. Perhaps more importantly, the pool of qualified people is tiny in comparison. It would be interesting to know what kind of salary they're on.
I get this but there is a shortage of care workers and they are not paid a lot.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
Why would anyone bother to train for 10+ years to be a brain surgeon, or go to university, or even bother with studying at school? Why would the creators of wealth bother to risk their money (that they wouldn't have in your world anyway) to create jobs?
Should there be a universal income minimum that is sufficient to provide food, warmth, shelter and the other basic needs? Yes of course, nobody would disagree with that but to have that income as the minimum and maximum would simply not work.
You say 'the way the economy is run is related to the way society is run' - no shit Sherlock. That's what happens in a democracy and the only way your world would be possible (still not right though) would be with a totalitarian regime - and even then corruption would make sure the 'philosopher Kings' got the biggest slice of the action.
I agree with a lot of this. I think that there is a debate to be had regarding whether having a more equal world means totalitarianism. The counter argument is usually about what people describe as ‘human nature’, and to me using persuasion to influence human nature is the way to go, backed up by ‘democratically’ agreed rules. Your point about ‘bothering’ to learn stuff is one I disagree with. I think people are motivated to learn stuff not only by money. I once met somebody (trust me this is true) who was the world expert in European primroses, very enthusiastic about them, but there was no money in it.
A more equal world is something I subscribe to (you know my politics anyway, Seth) and that can be achieved without totalitarianism - but I do not subscribe to an equal world.
Yes, people (especially children) are motivated to learn - it's a natural developmental process. Vocational education is somewhat different though and I would suggest an anecdote about a primrose expert doesn't go too far in proving your point ;-)
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
That is up to society isn’t it?
However if both are at work from 9-5 then they are doing the same hours.
Why would anyone bother to train for 10+ years to be a brain surgeon, or go to university, or even bother with studying at school? Why would the creators of wealth bother to risk their money (that they wouldn't have in your world anyway) to create jobs?
Should there be a universal income minimum that is sufficient to provide food, warmth, shelter and the other basic needs? Yes of course, nobody would disagree with that but to have that income as the minimum and maximum would simply not work.
You say 'the way the economy is run is related to the way society is run' - no shit Sherlock. That's what happens in a democracy and the only way your world would be possible (still not right though) would be with a totalitarian regime - and even then corruption would make sure the 'philosopher Kings' got the biggest slice of the action.
I agree with a lot of this. I think that there is a debate to be had regarding whether having a more equal world means totalitarianism. The counter argument is usually about what people describe as ‘human nature’, and to me using persuasion to influence human nature is the way to go, backed up by ‘democratically’ agreed rules. Your point about ‘bothering’ to learn stuff is one I disagree with. I think people are motivated to learn stuff not only by money. I once met somebody (trust me this is true) who was the world expert in European primroses, very enthusiastic about them, but there was no money in it.
A more equal world is something I subscribe to (you know my politics anyway, Seth) and that can be achieved without totalitarianism - but I do not subscribe to an equal world.
Yes, people (especially children) are motivated to learn - it's a natural developmental process. Vocational education is somewhat different though and I would suggest an anecdote about a primrose expert doesn't go too far in proving your point ;-)
I agree. I am not trying to prove a point so much as suggesting there are alternative ways to look at things.
In past times, especially during the enlightenment, a lot of people who had the luxury of learning were those rich enough to not be tied to the drudgery of work in order to simply survive.
They were able to persue learning and discovery for it’s own sake, ‘because it is there’ as a mountaineer might say. Or be a woman tied to the endless cycle of bearing children. Brilliant women of the past such as Emile duChatelet were motivated to learn stuff despite her personal challenges but such women were rare because society in those days worked against them.
It is just a bit of fun but what it does show is that to raise money you have to make decisions that are going to be unpopular somewhere if you want to stay within fiscal rules. Where there is some leeway is you could change the fiscal rules. Currently, if you borrow x to gain y, the number factored in is x, and it doesn't matter what y is as long as it is bigger than x. But if you instead look at y, your return on the investment, x can be higher and stay within your fiscal rules. This actually makes more sense as long as you are confident y is going to be larger. X has to be for something that promotes growth, not for subsidising creaking public services though and indeed there is a limit to what x can be to maintain confidence.
What austerity did was shrink the economy so you don't get growth, and with the economy constantly shrinking, you never reach your savings target, but if you do increase x, that is still borrowing and unlike in 2010, interest rates mean it is costly so you have to get it right. I believe the fuss the winter fuel payment cut has created is what the chancellor wants. If you want to give the message that you are willing to be tough and stick to things despite the fallout, those with the money may have more faith to invest in the country if the something you stick to is deeply unpopular. That is why, even if some money was found behind the sofa, the policy is unlikely to be changed IMO.
Not very Labour some would say, but I think they believe they are administering the equivalent of chemotherapy to the country. Maybe the politics of what you do when/if you get out of the mire is what the difference is. But any party in power would have no option but to go for growth. Liz Truss made that a cornerstone of her policies but that backfired because she couldn't take the markets with her. That is why keeping to the fiscal rules is so important.
Agree for the most part. Running an economy is not like running a household budget. Cutting back on expenses may in the very short term (year 1) bring you slightly closer to balancing the books but beyond that it simply puts costs in other parts of the system up and reduces income. That way you end up in this cycle of never ending cist cutting chasing the savings around the system until it breaks. All the while wondering why productivity and growth are down. Austerity has never worked to bring down a budget deficit ever in any country in history. It was purely an ideological decision. And now we are suffering a lost generation of investment as well as all inequality driven by austerity.
The fiscal rules are important as you're saying to bring the markets with you. My view has been for a while (and its something there are rumours this government are considering)is that we should have separate fiscal rules for day to day spending and investment. Investment drives productivity and growth you have to get out of the cycle where day to day spending is high due to a lack of investment so we can't afford to invest.
The trouble with that is defining investment. Infrastructure is obvious but education and health are investments in our workforce. Even the non-work related disability benefits could be seen as an investment in disabled people's participation in society and ability to work.
It is just a bit of fun but what it does show is that to raise money you have to make decisions that are going to be unpopular somewhere if you want to stay within fiscal rules. Where there is some leeway is you could change the fiscal rules. Currently, if you borrow x to gain y, the number factored in is x, and it doesn't matter what y is as long as it is bigger than x. But if you instead look at y, your return on the investment, x can be higher and stay within your fiscal rules. This actually makes more sense as long as you are confident y is going to be larger. X has to be for something that promotes growth, not for subsidising creaking public services though and indeed there is a limit to what x can be to maintain confidence.
What austerity did was shrink the economy so you don't get growth, and with the economy constantly shrinking, you never reach your savings target, but if you do increase x, that is still borrowing and unlike in 2010, interest rates mean it is costly so you have to get it right. I believe the fuss the winter fuel payment cut has created is what the chancellor wants. If you want to give the message that you are willing to be tough and stick to things despite the fallout, those with the money may have more faith to invest in the country if the something you stick to is deeply unpopular. That is why, even if some money was found behind the sofa, the policy is unlikely to be changed IMO.
Not very Labour some would say, but I think they believe they are administering the equivalent of chemotherapy to the country. Maybe the politics of what you do when/if you get out of the mire is what the difference is. But any party in power would have no option but to go for growth. Liz Truss made that a cornerstone of her policies but that backfired because she couldn't take the markets with her. That is why keeping to the fiscal rules is so important.
Of course the issue with Truss' plan wasn't that she was going for growth but that she based it all around the principle of trickle down which despite the majority of the western world chasing this for the last 50 years every study and evaluation has shown that it doesn't work and only benefits those at the top.
It is just a bit of fun but what it does show is that to raise money you have to make decisions that are going to be unpopular somewhere if you want to stay within fiscal rules. Where there is some leeway is you could change the fiscal rules. Currently, if you borrow x to gain y, the number factored in is x, and it doesn't matter what y is as long as it is bigger than x. But if you instead look at y, your return on the investment, x can be higher and stay within your fiscal rules. This actually makes more sense as long as you are confident y is going to be larger. X has to be for something that promotes growth, not for subsidising creaking public services though and indeed there is a limit to what x can be to maintain confidence.
What austerity did was shrink the economy so you don't get growth, and with the economy constantly shrinking, you never reach your savings target, but if you do increase x, that is still borrowing and unlike in 2010, interest rates mean it is costly so you have to get it right. I believe the fuss the winter fuel payment cut has created is what the chancellor wants. If you want to give the message that you are willing to be tough and stick to things despite the fallout, those with the money may have more faith to invest in the country if the something you stick to is deeply unpopular. That is why, even if some money was found behind the sofa, the policy is unlikely to be changed IMO.
Not very Labour some would say, but I think they believe they are administering the equivalent of chemotherapy to the country. Maybe the politics of what you do when/if you get out of the mire is what the difference is. But any party in power would have no option but to go for growth. Liz Truss made that a cornerstone of her policies but that backfired because she couldn't take the markets with her. That is why keeping to the fiscal rules is so important.
Of course the issue with Truss' plan wasn't that she was going for growth but that she based it all around the principle of trickle down which despite the majority of the western world chasing this for the last 50 years every study and evaluation has shown that it doesn't work and only benefits those at the top.
I agree, but that isn't want freaked the markets. It was the disregard of any fiscal rules which culminated in purposely not having an OBR forecast which suggested they were trying to hide something. Incredible stupidity really without commenting on the politics.
We are caught between a rock and a hard place and although it won’t or can’t happen we all need to face a few facts which are political suicide.
1. We have an aging population which obviously is good but it’s expensive. 2. We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer live from benefits. 3. The NHS is just not sustainable in its current format. 4. We seem to be going down the route of politics of envy which always results in less revenue.
if you have a taxation system that penalises success companies and people will leave the system.
In order to pay for the things we all value you need to promote growth increased taxation either direct or stealth has the opposite effect
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
Although brain surgeons almost invariably come from the wealthier end of the middle class, with well paid parents and private education. So don't let's bs about what is fair.
It has been suggested above that some jobs are easier than others. I would suggest that how hard or easy a job is is a matter of opinion. However there is a similarity and equalising factor in all jobs in my view. If a brain surgeon works for eight hours, and a security guard works for eight hours then in that respect both jobs are equal. That isn’t a matter of opinion is it? Eight hours at work is eight hours at work whatever the job. I think what matters as the bottom line is that everybody who can work ought to be able to pay the bills for the basics needed to survive. For those unable to work, society chips in in order to ensure everybody has the ability to have the basics for survival. The way the economy is run is related to the way society is run in my opinion.
I would say a Brain surgeon has probably spent about 6 years in university running up a huge dept in the meantime. Upon leaving university he or she will then in all probability need several more years training before they can carry out Brain surgery. A security guard by comparison will only need a couple of days training. But yeah let's pay them the same money.
Although brain surgeons almost invariably come from the wealthier end of the middle class, with well paid parents and private education. So don't let's bs about what is fair.
I wouldn't want any of my working class peers working on my brain to be honest, and I thought brain surgeons and engineers all arrive on blow up dinghies?
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
I would give free weight-loss jabs to long-term unemployed people, to get them fit enough to get back to work, producing a long-term increase in Treasury funds from those people working, instead of claiming sickness benefit. I would invest part of that income into patient passports to hold all patients' medical records in order to reduce delays, administration and log-jams across the NHS.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment is the issue not that the majority of pensioners don’t do a tax return and in practice therefore the ability to recover the tax without extra admin expense is limited?
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
The question is "are the new incapacity/disability claims genuine or bogus?" Categorised by qualified doctors. We have an NHS system with 7 million on the waiting list for treatment. Perhaps dealing with that might reduce claimants. The maths do no excuse the lack of principle.
Not sure what your comment on pensions is about, I pay tax on my state pension. It is not tax free.
That it is a Labour Party clamping down indiscriminately on benefits and pensioners, the most vunerable in society, is inexcusable.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
The question is "are the new incapacity/disability claims genuine or bogus?" We have an NHS system with 7 million on the waiting list for treatment. Perhaps dealing with that might reduce claimants. The maths do no excuse the lack of principle.
Not sure what your comment on pensions is about, I pay tax on my state pension. It is not tax free.
That it is a Labour Party clamping down indiscriminately on benefits and pensioners is inexcusable.
Wasn't suggesting they were bogus claims, but the number is a problem and suspect there are various and numerous causes, this is a good read:
Until we establish the cause we can't do an awful lot about it. But it's a hell of an ever increasing amount of money, nearly 20% of income tax collected annually to put in perspective.
I was saying the winter fuel allowance is a tax free benefit, not the state pension. Another way was to keep as was but to Tax the benefit.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment is the issue not that the majority of pensioners don’t do a tax return and in practice therefore the ability to recover the tax without extra admin expense is limited?
Pretty much everyone drawing a private pension is an income tax payer, the pension company deduct tax based on what HMRC inform them of (as the government do not deduct tax at source from the state pension), adding another few hundred to that number is not difficult. Or simpler remove the benefit and increase the state pension by a few hundred. Many ways of doing it to achieve the same goal without effecting some of the most needy.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
The question is "are the new incapacity/disability claims genuine or bogus?" We have an NHS system with 7 million on the waiting list for treatment. Perhaps dealing with that might reduce claimants. The maths do no excuse the lack of principle.
Not sure what your comment on pensions is about, I pay tax on my state pension. It is not tax free.
That it is a Labour Party clamping down indiscriminately on benefits and pensioners is inexcusable.
Wasn't suggesting they were bogus claims, but the number is a problem and suspect there are various and numerous causes, this is a good read:
Until we establish the cause we can't do an awful lot about it. But it's a hell of an ever increasing amount of money, nearly 20% of income tax collected annually to put in perspective.
I was saying the winter fuel allowance is a tax free benefit, not the state pension. Another way was to keep as was but to Tax the benefit.
We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer to hide their considerable wealth in tax havens, rather than finance a stable culture.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
Theres many facets to your first statement, whilst I agree on those (hopefully few) with tax havens abroad, there's also a major issue (for many reasons) that continues to worsen on those of working age on some form of incapacity/disability benefit. Over 4.2m now. Pre Covid around 20,000 new claims a month is now dwarfed by almost 100,000 new claims a month. The cost pre covid of circa £12bn per year, now that's approaching 50bn and increasing daily. Expected to reach £64bn on current trend by 2028.
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment is the issue not that the majority of pensioners don’t do a tax return and in practice therefore the ability to recover the tax without extra admin expense is limited?
Pretty much everyone drawing a private pension is an income tax payer, the pension company deduct tax based on what HMRC inform them of (as the government do not deduct tax at source from the state pension), adding another few hundred to that number is not difficult. Or simpler remove the benefit and increase the state pension by a few hundred. Many ways of doing it to achieve the same goal without effecting some of the most needy.
The pension company apply the tax code.
The majority I assume will have the standard allowance (not all).
The benefit is not paid by the pension company. People may have several pensions paying too.
It’s not quite as administratively simple as we might want it to be. But again I do agree there must be a better way than currently.
My thought was it could have been akin to child allowance where its tapered at a household income level BUT this also leads to adjustments via a tax return and my point is I suspect most pensioners don’t file tax returns.
You didn't mention WFA. I'm talking about taxing STATE pensions not private ones. Not at source but I get a bill every year. Rather than cut disability benefits, why not target AirBnB tax avoiders, people in million pound houses paying pathetic amounts of council tax (like Starmer), owners of multiple properties and UK residents directing income to tax havens.
You didn't mention WFA. I'm talking about taxing STATE pensions not private ones. Not at source but I get a bill every year. Rather than cut disability benefits, why not target AirBnB tax avoiders, people in million pound houses paying pathetic amounts of council tax (like Starmer), owners of multiple properties and UK residents directing income to tax havens.
"The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with........."
Go after tax avoiders - tick, and I don't care whether that's AirBnB tax avoiders or people who don't declare their savings interest or self employed cash payments for work, billionaires who hide their money in tax havens abroad - it's all the same.
Council tax needs a shake up, but not sure simply taxing more at the higher value end is the answer. Someone who bought a house in the 60's for £3k isn't necessarily cash rich now just because the house is worth £1.25m. I think we do need to find a way to tax asset, but not at that sort of level.
Comments
I am suggesting that spending a specific amount of time at work, if it is an equal amount of time whatever the job, is an equalising factor.
I find it more difficult to say one job is easier than another as I think that is a matter of opinion.
According to HR review the ten most stressful jobs are in order
Police officer, sergeant or below.
Social Workers.
Welfare or housing workers.
Community nurses.
Other nurses.
Higher education teachers.
Primary education teachers.
Secondary education teachers.
Human resource managers.
National government administration jobs.
I found that on a website.
However other sites may say being a soldier is more stressful, or an airline pilot, or a construction worker, or a firefighter, or a chef.
As you may imagine a lot of the above is about opinion as to which jobs may be hard or which jobs may be easy or more or less stressful.
My argument is not about comparing jobs but comparing hours worked, because hours worked is not really about opinion.
The threshold for pension credit is so low at 201.05, that anyone who has the new state pension of £221.20 per week wouldn't qualify for the winter fuel allowance. If that is their only income, they will struggle to meet their bills, especially so, now that the winter energy cap has been raised by 10%.
A pensioner on such a low income is likely to be at home all day and need the heating on for longer, so will have to make a choice between heating and eating, that is dreadful for a supposedly rich country.
The amount of training required
The stress levels involved
And so on
As a security guard gains more qualifications (such as first aid, CCTV operation, etc.), the pool of qualified candidates shrinks, so the pay reflects that. If there was a field within the UK private security sector that required six years of intensive training, followed by a couple of years on-the-job training, I imagine their salary would be more comparable to a brain surgeon’s.
I remember going on a distillery tour years ago, though I can't recall if it was maybe Cognac or Cointreau, where I'm pretty sure they mentioned that the taster needs something like 15 years of training, and they always have 2 or 3 people in training to replace the chief taster when they retire. The point is, compared to a brain surgeon, the importance of their role is relatively minor, but they require more than double the training. Perhaps more importantly, the pool of qualified people is tiny in comparison. It would be interesting to know what kind of salary they're on.
I think that there is a debate to be had regarding whether having a more equal world means totalitarianism.
The counter argument is usually about what people describe as ‘human nature’, and to me using persuasion to influence human nature is the way to go, backed up by ‘democratically’ agreed rules.
Your point about ‘bothering’ to learn stuff is one I disagree with. I think people are motivated to learn stuff not only by money.
I once met somebody (trust me this is true) who was the world expert in European primroses, very enthusiastic about them, but there was no money in it.
What should be clear to most people that this Government are not acting like a Labour Government, and a Tory Government could easily do the same things. They are going for growth and are willing to take the hit now but of course, they do need things to start getting better at some point before the next election.
In past times, especially during the enlightenment, a lot of people who had the luxury of learning were those rich enough to not be tied to the drudgery of work in order to simply survive.
Or be a woman tied to the endless cycle of bearing children. Brilliant women of the past such as Emile duChatelet were motivated to learn stuff despite her personal challenges but such women were rare because society in those days worked against them.
The fiscal rules are important as you're saying to bring the markets with you. My view has been for a while (and its something there are rumours this government are considering)is that we should have separate fiscal rules for day to day spending and investment. Investment drives productivity and growth you have to get out of the cycle where day to day spending is high due to a lack of investment so we can't afford to invest.
The trouble with that is defining investment. Infrastructure is obvious but education and health are investments in our workforce. Even the non-work related disability benefits could be seen as an investment in disabled people's participation in society and ability to work.
1. We have an aging population which obviously is good but it’s expensive.
2. We have far too many people who are just not willing to contribute to society and prefer live from benefits.
3. The NHS is just not sustainable in its current format.
4. We seem to be going down the route of politics of envy which always results in less revenue.
if you have a taxation system that penalises success companies and people will leave the system.
Starmer and Reeves targeting sick, disabled and pensioners will not get them a second term. They'd lose an election called now. What they are doing in the Labour Party, I'm not sure. Are they colour-blind?
The pensioners (by way of winter fuel) I partly agree with, what I don't agree with is the level it's been brought down to or how it's handled. They could easily have made a small change to pensioners taxation to reclaim a lot of it simply by making it taxable and not tax free as currently.
The counties creaking for many many reasons, I'm not envisaging any parliament in my lifetime fixing it.
Not sure what your comment on pensions is about, I pay tax on my state pension. It is not tax free.
That it is a Labour Party clamping down indiscriminately on benefits and pensioners, the most vunerable in society, is inexcusable.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/recent-trends-and-outlook-health-related-benefits#:~:text=There%20are%20now%204.2%20million,starting%20a%20new%20benefit%20claim.
Until we establish the cause we can't do an awful lot about it. But it's a hell of an ever increasing amount of money, nearly 20% of income tax collected annually to put in perspective.
I was saying the winter fuel allowance is a tax free benefit, not the state pension. Another way was to keep as was but to Tax the benefit.
Pretty much everyone drawing a private pension is an income tax payer, the pension company deduct tax based on what HMRC inform them of (as the government do not deduct tax at source from the state pension), adding another few hundred to that number is not difficult. Or simpler remove the benefit and increase the state pension by a few hundred. Many ways of doing it to achieve the same goal without effecting some of the most needy.
Go after tax avoiders - tick, and I don't care whether that's AirBnB tax avoiders or people who don't declare their savings interest or self employed cash payments for work, billionaires who hide their money in tax havens abroad - it's all the same.
Council tax needs a shake up, but not sure simply taxing more at the higher value end is the answer. Someone who bought a house in the 60's for £3k isn't necessarily cash rich now just because the house is worth £1.25m. I think we do need to find a way to tax asset, but not at that sort of level.