You are talking absolute nonsenseOctober 31st 2024-nuclear bombs hit the UK
Pope; 2nd November 2024-dont elect Trump-it would be catastrophic for democracy
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 populationYou 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.
Private school fees have gone up 23% above inflation since 2010Is 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.
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 taxPrivate school fees have gone up 23% above inflation since 2010
1. It's The TorygraphIs 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.
you won't find any current figures unless you have some mates in the treasury.
not sure you actually have a point beyond you don't like benefits or you think we spend too much on them. Can we assume you want pensions cut as well since they are benefits to non employed people?
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.’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.
UK’s interests first and it’s in the Uk ‘s interests to have a supporter in the Whitehouse
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.
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
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
Trump will hand Putin whatever he wants because Putin absolutely owns the guy. I suspect Putin may even have invented Trump to some degree.
Its hardly the first time,and sure won't be the last.Imagine taking something out of contest and running with it to back up a hatred of someone. Who would do that and why?
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
This completely vindicates Trump of absolutely all the rotten, evil shit he's put into the world.Imagine taking something out of contest and running with it to back up a hatred of someone. Who would do that and why?
The media played him at his own game. The irony is giving me a warm glow.This completely vindicates Trump of absolutely all the rotten, evil shit he's put into the world.