kaosmark2
-
Posts
20,537 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by kaosmark2
-
-
7 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
Now that media and others are talking about merging NI and Income Tax I have rethought my support for it.
Not only would pensioners be worse off as they do not pay NI but do pay Income Tax but in all the discussions not much if anything has been talked about on the Employers NI part.
If they merge the taxes, ie scrap NI, then businesses stop paying this but it is not replaced unless a new tax is added. Seems a great way to get business off the tax hook and put more on people already struggling....... like the Tories like to do.
Then you get the 'qualifying years' for State Pension, how would that work?
Don't get me wrong, I would like one simple tax but to get to that the entire system needs starting again otherwise if will create a right old mess and likely the poorest will take the burden.Employers NI is a bit of a double-edged sword though, and already has some obnoxious work-arounds. Notably, a huge number of employers - both small businesses and giant ones - do the "you're not my employee, you're a self-employed contractor", to get around employer's contributions to NI, and a bunch of workers rights stuff. It's been prominent in the media about zero-hours contracts, or about uber/deliveroo, but I'd explicitly say that virtually everywhere that tries to get around the employer's NI contributions is kind of doing so already.
PAYE isn't the same thing for Gen Z and many millennials as for others - so many people are self-employed and doing their own tax calculations in the same way as in the USA.
I do agree with the concept of what you're saying - don't let businesses off the hook for their tax contributions - but it's already happening and if scrapping NI overall would come with a wider reform of how the tax system works - I think it could definitely be done as a good thing.
Ofc, I also think Universal Credit is a good idea, making all benefits assessed and paid in combination - but the way the Tories implemented it was a cruel one that came with brutal cuts and left the poorest worst off. So even if it should be a good-thing long-term, there's many that would suffer from that transition - and they're already often the poorest amongst society and a natural target of Tory goverments.
-
4 hours ago, Ozanne said:
Tax isn’t a bad thing at all but when the Tories try to claim they are cutting taxes it’s good to point out that they actually aren’t.
But this is exactly my point, the phrasing and framing of it isn't "the tories are lying to you" it's "the tories aren't cutting your taxes", with the exact framing of "tax cuts are a good thing and you should want them to do it".
The framing needs to be "the tories are making your life worse" "the tax cuts they're claiming aren't making your life better". It's not about whether it's actual tax cuts or not, it's that it's ceding the narrative of "tax vs spend" to the tories in the "tax cuts good, spending bad".
-
1 minute ago, Ozanne said:
Well well well, the Tories are increasing taxes again.
I know it's a lovely attack line but I wish people would stop using it. I want the narrative changed away from "taxation is a bad thing".
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
New scheme to be announced in 2025 - so never
I read it as "to be implemented". I think they're wanting to a do half-arsed version with workarounds for their mates to stop labour doing it properly. I do think they'll be trying to get something through.
-
9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
This non dom thing shows why Labour are reluctant to come out with policies early....because now the Tories have kind of f**ked them with it. So, now Labour needs to find money elsewhere, or reverse those tax cuts which is exactly what the Tories want.
But Hunt has said "to be replaced with a new scheme", and so far no details of that scheme. It's utterly meaningless until we know the details.
-
8 minutes ago, DareToDibble said:
All 3 have 4 games left against the top 6. City and Liverpool have 5 against 7-14th and 2 against the bottom 6, Arsenal with 6 against 7-14th and 3 against the bottom 6. Really could go either way.
I'm generally a believer in the idea that mid-table teams tend to be a bit flat in the final 3-4 games of the season, with fairly little to play for and players having very little wish to risk injury, particularly if there's a tournament that summer. If City don't fall far behind in the next 2 games I don't really see them dropping points again.
That fixture run for Spurs as well.... City, Arsenal, Liverpool straight on the bounce. They can have a big impact there.
-
2 minutes ago, Neil said:
it might be narrow i just don't see it as the easy win which is being claimed. lot of slagging off for the greens on the Bristol reddit.
Social media is generally angry people with too much time on their hands. Particularly location-based social media.
I'm acquainted with a few of the local green campaigners, and they don't think it's an easy win at all, they think they can make it a hard fought seat and are aiming for victory.
Starmer pissed off a lot of people with going on about knife crime last visit and evading questions about bus service and housing. Add in pro-cop anti-protest comments, and standing by racists and homophobes and I don't see a high turnout from Labour voters in Bristol Central. I genuinely don't know if Greens will be able to mobilise their vote and convince half-arsed voters to vote for them over staying at home.
-
21 minutes ago, gizmoman said:
Really? Have you learned nothing in the last 2+ years? The covid vax never prevented the spread of the disease, even the manufacturers never claimed that, at best it reduced the effect on those infected, leading to fewer hospitalisations. The "take the vax to protect others" was pure propaganda with no scientific basis, we were lied to.
Have you learned nothing in the last 200 years? Smallpox, measles, etc.
The impact of the COVID vaccine is impossible to know because we can't have a control sample to compare it to, we can't repeat the outbreak, etc etc. But vaccines work, some reduce the impact of infection and chance of hospitalisation, others reduce spread. Anti-viral vaccines do generally reduce but not remove transmission, but it depends on modes of infection, rate of mutation, and viral load.
There's also just basic things, like if your cough isn't as intense, you're not going to project COVID particles as far, but maybe you go out more often so infect people the same amount.
-
17 minutes ago, Neil said:
greens reckon that will give them victory, can't see it, looks like less green support in the city now than 5 years ago.
There's a lot less Labour support than 5 years ago though. I'm seeing a lot more apathy, a lot more "they're all the same", and a lot of distrust in Starmer.
Add in the various protests, the huge amount of distrust into the police, and Starmer's general socially illiberal attitude, and I think it'll be narrow.
-
7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
look at that swing.
It's partially a boundary shift. What used to be Bristol West had a posh Tory section near the Clifton suspension bridge, which is being removed for the Bristol Central constituency and they're adding in areas which are largely young professionals.
-
10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
I'm gonna say it again in case it bears repeating:
I don't think that anyone who's expressing sympathy for the people getting bombed in Gaza thinks anything positive about Hamas. It's possible to think that both Hamas and the Israeli govt and IDF are monstrous, and behaving horrendously. This isn't a thing of "both-sidesing" or "Jews bad". Hamas are an evil terrorist organisation committing atrocities and using the Palestinian people as a meat shield for their cause.
Simultaneously, Israel are indiscriminately bombing people, committing war crimes, and targeting relief aid to enact a desired genocide and expansionism. Both the Israeli govt and Hamas are perfectly happy with the human suffering that's occurring because they take advantage of it to persuade people of their own cause. It's horrific.
I am not in the slightest surprised when evidence comes out of sexual assaults and rapes committed by Hamas, nor when it comes out about the IDF. It's entirely in keeping with all of their behaviour, not just over recent months, but over the last few decades. They're filled with monsters who dehumanise and use people in all sorts of ways.
Calling out atrocities from one side does not mean excusing them from the other side. It just means calling out those atrocities. No whataboutery, none of it.
Hamas are evil pieces of sh*t.
-
2 hours ago, fred quimby said:
Seem to upvote that but hey.
I hear where you are coming from but believe they are such different examples. Pregnant v infectious disease
There's also the thing of vaccines against infectious diseases don't just impact the person taking the vaccine. They drastically affect the spread of the disease and help create societal immunity for those that aren't actually capable (for whatever reason) of taking the vaccine.
Not taking a vaccine citing "my choice" is like walking into a hospital ward for infants with lung problems and chain-smoking. That choice is killing innocent vulnerable people.
Taking medically approved vaccines to prevent the spread of infectious diseases is a social responsibility, and if you opt out of doing so, I would say that that is part of opting out of society.
-
37 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
apparently OBR are part of the deep state now.
Is the deep state in the room with us right now?
-
2 hours ago, steviewevie said:
he didn't support brexit etc etc
Corbyn's half-arsed remain advocacy was worse than if he'd come out for Brexit.
-
Yeah Galloway is so so much worse than Corbyn.
-
2 hours ago, steviewevie said:
So...does Sunak really want national unity, or does he just want to score some political points?
the "conservative and unionist party" hasn't given a sh*t about unity or the union in a long time.
-
That disgusting piece of sh*t getting in is on Labour. Excuses are excuses.
-
4 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:
A good few of them and some Labour ones too. Shouldn't be allowed imo
Particularly as lots of them do the flipping home thing around expensing a London one while renting out another.
-
Tories watering down the bill banning no-fault evictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68421116
After opposition from Tory MPs that are landlords and the National Residential Landlords Associtation
-
8 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:
so would it not make sense to withdraw whip ? can that not force one ? surely theres ways .... I guess Bridgen is still sat there as an independent
Nope. It has to be triggered by either by the MP, or by a recall petition from constituents.
-
2 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:
suprised its taken this long , so if he jumps to reform does it mean another by election ?
No, MPs can switch party without triggering a by-election.
Which is one of many things that need to be changed within the electoral reform banner.
-
5 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:
The metric I run such things against is that used for Anti-Sematism.
If Anderson had said the same about an Jewish mayor being controlled by Jewish people then that would be Anti-Sematism and there would have been immediate sackings and nobody at all would back away from saying what it was.So using that same metric to see if he was Islamaphobic, then yes, 100% he was.
Sadly these 'rules' are only used for one bigotry tendancy and not all.What about "given renminbi" and "funded by Fu Manchu"?
-
Meanwhile, in stopped clock moments:
-
3 hours ago, steviewevie said:
Whereas if they were right-wing it would be "lone wolf agitator guilty of ..."
UK Politics
in Discussions
Posted
It's absolutely batshit, considering the horrendous sh*t she spouted and culture she created while Home Secretary, that we would now talk about her as a "moderate Tory".
Evil, evil woman, and still somehow better than a lot of them.