By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Total rubbish. You and mother Theresa might think it's simple but it's not. It's very complicated and difficult and it won't be solved by supercilious sound bites.
Pray tell.
But lets be clear, it wont be about kicking out and excluding foreign nationals in the thousands as lunar and others seem to allude to.
The gap between rich and poor disposable incomes has narrowed due to taxation and benefits according to that but only recently. The figures are also being distorted by retirees according to the bulletin. Pensioners have seen disposable income growth of 3.8% over the period discussed in the report and most pensioners fall into the lower bands.
Removing retirees then it states median income is still 1.2% below post crisis levels. So that's a decade of stagnant wage growth for the majority.
Also that's earnings broken into 20% bands. What would be interesting is to see the distribution in that top band. I suspect we would see that the top 5% had strong growth largely due to investment income and the bottom of the top band relying on employment as the main source of income would show a decline due to higher taxation.
Upshot from the article seems to be pensioners have done ok and workers have not.
The figures are based on incomes not wealth, which is an important distinction. Investment income has been pretty terrible since the crisis due to QE cutting interest rates to all time lows. If you relied on interest on savings for your livelihood you would be in desperate straits, with a tiny fraction of your previous income. But the same trend is great news for borrowers or asset owners.
There have also been other changes working to flatten outcomes in disposable income. I lost £3,000 in annual disposable income at a stroke of a pen when Osborne took child benefits off those earning more than £70,000. Darling imposed an income tax rate of 50% on earnings over £150,000. Though the Tories reduced it to 45%, it's still there. Though there are still outrageous loopholes, such as carried interest for private equity managers, tax collection is falling more heavily than ever on higher earners, despite the general impression that they all pay nothing. At the other end of the scale, the minimum wage is rising steadily, however unattractive it might look to those on above average earnings.
On the issue of productivity and low wages, there isn't a right answer. French productivity is high because the indirect costs of employment are much higher than here, so an individual has to contribute more before an employer will agree to take them. There is also the issue that you need to be sure that you can keep them for the long term given that you can't lay them off easily in a downturn. Those with fewest proven skills to offer, e.g. young people and immigrants, are too much of a risk. That's why the French have higher productivity and massive youth employment, and the world's poor and desperate camp on their borders to get out of a safe first wold high wage economy, and we have the reverse. Which is better? We have more manifest working inequality, but you can buy anything you want on a Sunday. The French have firmer job security and shorter hours (for now) for those inside the fortress, but are experimenting with life-long unemployment in large pockets of their society, including one which is exposed to a violent ideological alternative.
The figures are based on incomes not wealth, which is an important distinction. Investment income has been pretty terrible since the crisis due to QE cutting interest rates to all time lows. If you relied on interest on savings for your livelihood you would be in desperate straits, with a tiny fraction of your previous income. But the same trend is great news for borrowers or asset owners.
There have also been other changes working to flatten outcomes in disposable income. I lost £3,000 in annual disposable income at a stroke of a pen when Osborne took child benefits off those earning more than £70,000. Darling imposed an income tax rate of 50% on earnings over £150,000. Though the Tories reduced it to 45%, it's still there. Though there are still outrageous loopholes, such as carried interest for private equity managers, tax collection is falling more heavily than ever on higher earners, despite the general impression that they all pay nothing. At the other end of the scale, the minimum wage is rising steadily, however unattractive it might look to those on above average earnings.
On the issue of productivity and low wages, there isn't a right answer. French productivity is high because the indirect costs of employment are much higher than here, so an individual has to contribute more before an employer will agree to take them. There is also the issue that you need to be sure that you can keep them for the long term given that you can't lay them off easily in a downturn. Those with fewest proven skills to offer, e.g. young people and immigrants, are too much of a risk. That's why the French have higher productivity and massive youth employment, and the world's poor and desperate camp on their borders to get out of a safe first wold high wage economy, and we have the reverse. Which is better? We have more manifest working inequality, but you can buy anything you want on a Sunday. The French have firmer job security and shorter hours (for now) for those inside the fortress, but are experimenting with life-long unemployment in large pockets of their society, including one which is exposed to a violent ideological alternative.
I don't often agree with your views, MrSheen, but I always find your postings insightful. Keep up the good work!
Just seen, heard, Diane Abbot talking on radio about funding for police. Hasn't got a clue. Every faith in a Labour government, Corbyn and Abbot, more like Abbot and Costello. You would trust her, no way.
Car crash interview from Diane Abbott.
That reminds me...I did speculate when there were all those 'Corbyn wants to get rid of the army' stories in the press that if anything he would more likely be an enthusiast for expanding nationalised bodies of armed men.
The figures are based on incomes not wealth, which is an important distinction. Investment income has been pretty terrible since the crisis due to QE cutting interest rates to all time lows. If you relied on interest on savings for your livelihood you would be in desperate straits, with a tiny fraction of your previous income. But the same trend is great news for borrowers or asset owners.
There have also been other changes working to flatten outcomes in disposable income. I lost £3,000 in annual disposable income at a stroke of a pen when Osborne took child benefits off those earning more than £70,000. Darling imposed an income tax rate of 50% on earnings over £150,000. Though the Tories reduced it to 45%, it's still there. Though there are still outrageous loopholes, such as carried interest for private equity managers, tax collection is falling more heavily than ever on higher earners, despite the general impression that they all pay nothing. At the other end of the scale, the minimum wage is rising steadily, however unattractive it might look to those on above average earnings.
On the issue of productivity and low wages, there isn't a right answer. French productivity is high because the indirect costs of employment are much higher than here, so an individual has to contribute more before an employer will agree to take them. There is also the issue that you need to be sure that you can keep them for the long term given that you can't lay them off easily in a downturn. Those with fewest proven skills to offer, e.g. young people and immigrants, are too much of a risk. That's why the French have higher productivity and massive youth employment, and the world's poor and desperate camp on their borders to get out of a safe first wold high wage economy, and we have the reverse. Which is better? We have more manifest working inequality, but you can buy anything you want on a Sunday. The French have firmer job security and shorter hours (for now) for those inside the fortress, but are experimenting with life-long unemployment in large pockets of their society, including one which is exposed to a violent ideological alternative.
I find it incredible that people earning well over the average wage were still entitled to child benefit, I never knew that! As for pensioners - yes they have done better than those in work over the last few years thanks to the "triple lock" which guarantees a minimum 2.5% increase on the state pension each year, which has been above inflation and more importantly above average pay increases. However, that was needed because many pensioners had fallen behind and were living in poverty due to their pensions not keeping up with inflation. It rather looks like the Tories are now going to remove the guaranteed 2.5% increase though. However, they will keep increasing pensions either by inflation or average wage rises, which ever is the larger.
And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
This is a truly awful read and god knows how much it will cost us taxpayers to keep them in prison for effectively the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, at present, we do not have a clue how many others like these are residing in our country. In fact we do not have a clue who is in our country!!!
There are three countries in the EU who give the most - us, France and Germany - why do they not want us to leave because it will cost them more. Others will be crying when the Euro MP gravy train hits the buffers as well. They need us more than we need them so they can all do one as far as I am concerned. I would even send back my German car - lets see how they would like that when we stop the imports of German Cars into this country.
May is quite right to make a strong stand - we voted to leave - deal with it!!!
On the productivity issue, one of the justifications for the Tories taking us into Europe in the first place was to raise the efficiency of British industry:
'In 1970, the Heath government began negotiations to join the European Economic Community (EEC), and Britain became a member on 1 January 1973. But the UK still remained at one remove from the European project. The British government's rationale for membership rested on the importance of the EEC as a fast-growing trade bloc, a closer alliance with which would exert some competitive pressure on British industry through lower tariffs and the removal of other trade restrictions. The industrial policy of the Heath government — which it would later change as unemployment rose rapidly, threatening political problems — was to let industrial 'lame ducks' go to the wall and use the new EEC membership to force British industry to be more competitive in world markets.'
Tony Norfield, The City - London and the Global Power of Finance, (2016)
Have given this thread a wide swerve largely, so far, but for once I agree with you. This is where the inconsistencies within the EU have plagued all populations. There are some seriously dubious and frankly highly dangerous Brit crims hiding out in Spain too, many unkown to the authorities, but the inconsistencies are astonishing. So the problem of open borders for criminals to cross isn't isolated to the UK.
For example, once lovely Brit chap here, utterly unhinged, broke a ladies jaw with a single punch and threw her out of a moving car on a country road leaving her for dead, like you do. He was banned out of Spain for five years on conviction with the threat of five years inside if he returned during that time. That was several years ago. Within the EU as we know it.
Now they are saying with Brexit they wont imprison any Brit just ban them from Spain for a decade. It's the inconsistencies that are baffling. Spain and elsewhere seem to do what they want whilst UK lays down like a doormat. Another examle, NHS is entitled to collect some costs for treatment from EU member governments towards there Nationals treatment in the UK, as they do in Spain, but successive UK Governments never have and have lost millions if not billions. It's the inconsistencies across member states, and national governments are as responsible as the EU for these failures imho. I cant see why UK imprisons those in that article whilst Spain can exclude convicted criminals from the country.
She's deliberately ramping up the tough rhetoric (the EU is now trying to interfere in the election, apparently?!) because it plays well with the Brexit-fuelled jingoism enjoyed by many like our excitable friend Rosie, for example.
What makes it all the more striking is that she was a Remain-er until very recently. She's playing a divisive political game for no-one's benefit other the Tory party. It's certainly not in the country's interest.
Incidentally I think she's looking less stable with every passing day.
She's deliberately ramping up the tough rhetoric (the EU is now trying to interfere in the election, apparently?!) because it plays well with the Brexit-fuelled jingoism enjoyed by many like our excitable friend Rosie, for example.
What makes it all the more striking is that she was a Remain-er until very recently. She's playing a divisive political game for no-one's benefit other the Tory party. It's certainly not in the country's interest.
Incidentally I think she's looking less stable with every passing day.
She's deliberately ramping up the tough rhetoric (the EU is now trying to interfere in the election, apparently?!) because it plays well with the Brexit-fuelled jingoism enjoyed by many like our excitable friend Rosie, for example.
What makes it all the more striking is that she was a Remain-er until very recently. She's playing a divisive political game for no-one's benefit other the Tory party. It's certainly not in the country's interest.
Incidentally I think she's looking less stable with every passing day.
She's always reminded me for some reason of:
A magnificent football club, the love of our lives, finding a way to finally have its day in the sun.
May's lost it. She's completely out of her depth. I'm seriously struggling to get my head around the benefit of politically going to war with the very people she needs to negotiate with so she can appeal a bit more to her Leave fanbase in an election she's 99% likely to win anyway.
May's lost it. She's completely out of her depth. I'm seriously struggling to get my head around the benefit of politically going to war with the very people she needs to negotiate with so she can appeal a bit more to her Leave fanbase in an election she's 99% likely to win anyway.
I guess there's some realpolitik to it:
Had they not called an election now, they'd be in the midst of Brexit-fall-out at the next election. Having an election now means that (assuming they win...) they've got five years and a bit more clearance. In the mean time she's calculated that she needs to see off UKIP and the emboldened right of her party, which going by the polls are the main threat she faces.
Also, by having an election there'll be some turnover of Tory MPs, which means some of those that aren't on her side will leave parliament. Incoming MPs are potentially more likely to be loyal to her, as the standing PM.
It's totally reckless as far as the country goes though.
@Watford_Ranger 'a staunch Remainer who is now so rabidly pro the hardest of hard Brexits for her own career prospects and legacy.'
Was she ever really a staunch Remainer? One of the interesting things in Tim Shipman's book is that although on paper a remainer, May shrank into the background during the Brexit campaign after making a speech that positioned her for a leadership bid for the Tories:
'As ever, the minister Downing Street was most concerned about was Theresa May. On 25 April the home secretary made her only major speech of the campaign. Since backing Remain she had kept her head down, and details of what she was going to say were a closely guarded secret. Number 10 staff claim to have seen her full speech only at 11.30 the night before, after parts of it had been briefed to the morning papers and the BBC. The headline was that May announced that Britain should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, a position that cut across Tory policy. Michael Gove had worked up plans for a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, but that envisaged remaining signatories to the ECHR. In a rebuke to Cameron, May unhelpfully suggested that Britain had 'forgotten how to lead'... In the question-and-answer session afterwards, she admitted that EU membership made it harder to control the 'volume of immigration'. She said she did not believe 'the sky will fall in if we vote to leave', but added that as a 'result of a hard-headed analysis of what is in our national interest' she had concluded, 'I believe the case to remain a member of the European Union is strong.'
When the Downing Street communications team saw the proposed advance briefing for the papers, they asked for the line on the sky not falling in to be removed. 'They thought that was a really good line,' says a Number 10 source, 'but it was too easily misinterpreted. They didn't brief it in the end. But her team had their own way of doing it. They refused to use any campaign language. There was no core messaging in the speech.'
The speech was so balanced that it was seen in Westminster as an attempt to position May for a potential leadership bid. She had done just enough to placate the Remain camp without alienating the Brexiteers. Indeed, in the case of Iain Duncan Smith, she had thrilled them. The former leader called it a 'remarkable intervention' which had 'utterly undermined' the government's position on the ECHR and immigration.
In Downing Street and Stronger In, the speech was regarded as unhelpful. A Number 10 source said that when Craig Oliver saw it and digested the statement on the ECHR, he erupted, 'For fúck's sake, it's a fúcking disaster.' While some Tories thought May deliberately kept her head down during the campaign, in fact that suited Cameron and Osborne just fine. A Stronger In source said, 'I think the universal view was that it had been pretty awful, and that she basically conceded that immigration was a massive problem and there was not much you could do about it inside the EU. The view from Number 10 was that she shouldn't really be used. The view was that it had been so hopeless that it was best not to go there again.'
George Osborne was hugely irritated by May’s performance, and her failure to step up and be helpful to the campaign. Downing Street sources say he continually criticised May’s absence from the fight.'
Tim Shipman, All Out War - How Brexit Sank Britain's Political Class, (2016)
Which goes to show what an extremely astute politician she is. Although you could argue she was acting in self interest only. I'm sure her years at the Home Office will have heavily influenced her opinion of the HRA and the UCHR.
The sooner we are able to rewrite the legislation and replace it with our own, 21st Century, Brit centric equivalent the better.
She's deliberately ramping up the tough rhetoric (the EU is now trying to interfere in the election, apparently?!) because it plays well with the Brexit-fuelled jingoism enjoyed by many like our excitable friend Rosie, for example.
What makes it all the more striking is that she was a Remain-er until very recently. She's playing a divisive political game for no-one's benefit other the Tory party. It's certainly not in the country's interest.
Incidentally I think she's looking less stable with every passing day.
"She's deliberately ramping up the tough rhetoric (the EU is now trying to interfere in the election, apparently?!) because it plays well with the Brexit-fuelled jingoism enjoyed by many like our excitable friend Rosie, for example. "
Could well be true but surely the EU is also ramping up the tough rhetoric. Cannot understand why the EU is considered reasonable while May is criticised. The EU's only negotiating position it seems is to punish Britain to frighten any other country thinking of leaving regardless of the consequences. Take the £100M if we left without paying it there would be a massive whole in the budget more so as we are a net contributor so surely the EU have a lot to lose. I just do not accept the idea that the EU are the good guys and May et al are the bad guys.
"She's deliberately ramping up the tough rhetoric (the EU is now trying to interfere in the election, apparently?!) because it plays well with the Brexit-fuelled jingoism enjoyed by many like our excitable friend Rosie, for example. "
Could well be true but surely the EU is also ramping up the tough rhetoric. Cannot understand why the EU is considered reasonable while May is criticised. The EU's only negotiating position it seems is to punish Britain to frighten any other country thinking of leaving regardless of the consequences. Take the £100M if we left without paying it there would be a massive whole in the budget more so as we are a net contributor so surely the EU have a lot to lose. I just do not accept the idea that the EU are the good guys and May et al are the bad guys.
Indeed. I am/was a remainer but this is classic divide and conquer tactics from the EU as the uncertainty of an election looms. It actually makes me feel more brexit than remain as a result.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
