Here we go!
- Thread starter Pearced
- Start date
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
You are talking absolute nonsense
You are literally an appeaser
Running scared of Putin. He does whatever he wants to anyone and you say let him, then blame everyone who has some actual balls for making the world more dangerous.
What? I'm not the one supporting a child sniffing geriatric, funding a war which is bringing us to the edge of world war 3 and the death of a large proportion of the Ukrainian male population
Is this what they mean by Net Zero?
Labour’s private school tax raid ‘could cost taxpayer £1.6bn a year’
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT17 March 2024 • 7:00pm
Labour’s private school tax raid could cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion a year as it forces a quarter of pupils into the state sector, a new report has found.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party has made introducing VAT on independent school fees a flagship policy, claiming it would generate £1.7 billion to spend on state education.
But an analysis by the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), a free market think tank, warned that the policy was based on flawed assumptions and could cost the public purse billions across a single parliament.
Sir Keir has already unveiled seven policies that would be funded by his tax raid to the tune of £1.3 billion, the amount the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has estimated that it would raise annually.
In its report, titled Short Term Thinking, the ASI said the £1.3 billion figure, as well as projections that only three to seven per cent of children would move to the state sector, failed to take into account higher inflation, fiscal drag and rising mortgages and house prices.
Modelling by the ASI showed that Labour’s policy would raise no money at all if between 10 and 15 per cent of private school pupils migrated to the state sector. If this rose to 25 per cent – as previously predicted by the Baines Cutler consultancy – the policy would have a net negative cost of £1.6 billion a year.
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
Private school fees have gone up 23% above inflation since 2010
depends what you consider the true rate of inflation and how it’s measured. Irrespective, this is a class warrior policy. So the system can kiss goodbye to this middle class tax
JC21
Vital Football Hero
1. It's The Torygraph
2. 25% will NOT switch
3. Even if they do, it's about a tenth of the new revenue after copying Labour's non-dom tax
I'm not making any point, other than pointing out that benefits cost us an awful lot of money. Must admit I mis-read your £6 billion on housing benefits, but you gave the impression that benefits don't cost that much. I also don't believe that "most" benefits go to people in work either, though that's difficult to establish either way, and also depends what you include in benefits e.g, pensions.
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
Tom Waters, a Senior Research Economist at IFS and an author of the report, said: ‘We spend more than £100 billion each year on working-age benefits. About half of it now goes to families in work. This reflects changes in the underlying nature of low income in the UK, to which the benefits system naturally responds: we have high employment and chronic low earnings growth, meaning that an increasing share of the lowest-income families contain someone in paid work. It also reflects some major changes to benefits policy, including the introduction of universal credit, aimed very deliberately at encouraging more paid work. The challenge here is that the kind of work they have tended to produce has been part-time and low-paid – which generally does not serve as a stepping stone to higher-paid work further down the line. Policymakers would do well to look beyond the headline employment number when setting benefits policy, and consider how the system – and other parts of policy – can be shaped to promote longer-term career progression.’
Decades of benefit reforms have pushed more people into work – but very often into part-time, low-paid work with little prospect of progression
UK benefit reforms in recent decades have followed a consistent pattern of resulting in higher employment than the system they replaced – but usually in part-time, low-paid work which rarely...
ifs.org.uk
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
worth pointing out that the above is nowhere near as clear as you think it is. UK is a big place with many interests, which one is first? exactly what and how to pursue UK 'interests'.
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
It's the relative point I was trying to make. pensions cannot be considered an unemployment benefit imo (and general economic welfare) because you have to work for 40 years to get it. child benefit is universal so also doesn't qualify. JSA is contributions based so another one that isn't really just free money. by the time you strip it all back, compared to what we spend on everything else, it isn't the monster some think. sorting nhs, social care and pensions dwarf the money spent on benefits for those out of work.
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
Tom Waters, a Senior Research Economist at IFS and an author of the report, said: ‘We spend more than £100 billion each year on working-age benefits. About half of it now goes to families in work. This reflects changes in the underlying nature of low income in the UK, to which the benefits system naturally responds: we have high employment and chronic low earnings growth, meaning that an increasing share of the lowest-income families contain someone in paid work. It also reflects some major changes to benefits policy, including the introduction of universal credit, aimed very deliberately at encouraging more paid work. The challenge here is that the kind of work they have tended to produce has been part-time and low-paid – which generally does not serve as a stepping stone to higher-paid work further down the line. Policymakers would do well to look beyond the headline employment number when setting benefits policy, and consider how the system – and other parts of policy – can be shaped to promote longer-term career progression.’
Decades of benefit reforms have pushed more people into work – but very often into part-time, low-paid work with little prospect of progression
UK benefit reforms in recent decades have followed a consistent pattern of resulting in higher employment than the system they replaced – but usually in part-time, low-paid work which rarely...
for me what was interesting is that this situation was sold as a positive- greater female participation in the labour market, more flexibility etc. in fact it was simply businesses organising things to their advantage and they are the only winners.
the govt is in effect, subsidising business.
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
erm the Tories have destroyed the middle classes...
stenroach
Vital 1st Team Regular
I know you don't like the guy, but your being ridiculous.
Its that inner voice again, the one that tells you that the prem league is out to get Forest and will do anything to get us relegated.
Try to ignore it.
stenroach
Vital 1st Team Regular
Its hardly the first time,and sure won't be the last.
Tom Waters, a Senior Research Economist at IFS and an author of the report, said: ‘We spend more than £100 billion each year on working-age benefits. About half of it now goes to families in work. This reflects changes in the underlying nature of low income in the UK, to which the benefits system naturally responds: we have high employment and chronic low earnings growth, meaning that an increasing share of the lowest-income families contain someone in paid work. It also reflects some major changes to benefits policy, including the introduction of universal credit, aimed very deliberately at encouraging more paid work. The challenge here is that the kind of work they have tended to produce has been part-time and low-paid – which generally does not serve as a stepping stone to higher-paid work further down the line. Policymakers would do well to look beyond the headline employment number when setting benefits policy, and consider how the system – and other parts of policy – can be shaped to promote longer-term career progression.’
Decades of benefit reforms have pushed more people into work – but very often into part-time, low-paid work with little prospect of progression
UK benefit reforms in recent decades have followed a consistent pattern of resulting in higher employment than the system they replaced – but usually in part-time, low-paid work which rarely...
50% is around my guesstimate. Surely "most" is around 80 to 90 %.
weejockmcplop
Vital Champions League
This completely vindicates Trump of absolutely all the rotten, evil shit he's put into the world.
weejockmcplop
Vital Champions League
The Times have released a story in which they release the real name of an internet personality (F1NN5TER) who transitioned a few days ago. This is a form of doxing.
The story was about a donation to gender medical centre that was made a year ago.
Its nothing more than a vindictive reprisal for daring to publicly transition. Absolutely fucking disgusting behaviour. Tabloid journalism at its absolute worst.
The story was about a donation to gender medical centre that was made a year ago.
Its nothing more than a vindictive reprisal for daring to publicly transition. Absolutely fucking disgusting behaviour. Tabloid journalism at its absolute worst.
FeNris
Vital Squad Member
The media played him at his own game. The irony is giving me a warm glow.
