Coronavirus

[NickDRFC]

BFYP.
I agree with your point about the financial position of the young. That is the biggest failing of my generation and the one above it.

But if everyone had had the "no more tax" attitude 75 years ago, there's never have been an NHS.

Me, I'd start with a wealth tax. People with combined property, savings and pension funds above £1m pay 1% of that per year in tax. Start to address the shocking transfer of wealth that has occurred from the younger to the older generation.

Stretching off topic here but I think every higher rate tax payer should really be able to accommodate an extra 1% of tax. For someone earning £50k, that 1% would only be on £12,500 ie £125 a year. That’s just over £10 a month, and an extra £10 a month for every £12k above £50k. If that stretches someone earning that much to breaking point then they’re not managing their finances well enough.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Fully agree Nick.

Unfortunately, there is a very, very powerful lie wheeled out against that idea by vested interests.

It's called the Laffer Curve. It's the idea that if you lower taxes on highly paid people, they work harder, make more money and spend less time trying to avoid tax. So, reducing the top tax rate means that you actually get more tax from the highest paid.

It is utter, comprehensive bullshit. It has been comprehensively demolished by detailed research studies. But it is an article of faith for right wing politicians, because their raison d'etre is to free up the highest paid people.

Here is how they justify it.

They publicly announce that they are going to reduce higher rate taxes a year or so before they do.

As a result, highly paid people know that they would get more money in their pocket if they reduce their wages this year (when they would be highly taxed) and instead defer that payment to next year (when they would pay a lower percentage tax).

Consequently, in this year, with the higher top tax rate, there is a low tax income to the Govt. Next year, when the top tax rate is reduced, the Govt gets a bigger tax income.

The Govt then crows out, "See! SEE! We TOLD you that if we reduced the top tax rate, we'd take in more tax! Here's the proof."

And so it becomes an article of faith. They glaze over the fact that the overall net tax take over the two years is lower than it was in the previous two years with the higher rate. And newspaper and TV economics journalists think that is too complicated a story to tell to people, so it doesn't get told.

[no eyed deer]

BFYP.
I agree with your point about the financial position of the young. That is the biggest failing of my generation and the one above it.

But if everyone had had the "no more tax" attitude 75 years ago, there's never have been an NHS.

Me, I'd start with a wealth tax. People with combined property, savings and pension funds above £1m pay 1% of that per year in tax. Start to address the shocking transfer of wealth that has occurred from the younger to the older generation.

Stretching off topic here but I think every higher rate tax payer should really be able to accommodate an extra 1% of tax. For someone earning £50k, that 1% would only be on £12,500 ie £125 a year. That’s just over £10 a month, and an extra £10 a month for every £12k above £50k. If that stretches someone earning that much to breaking point then they’re not managing their finances well enough.

I'm in the bracket mentioned. It's not a vast amount, maybe 20 years ago.

Between the company I work for and myself contribute £1,000 every month in NI.

When IR35 comes into effect we may see more money going to the NHS.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Big announcement today about these seven "mass vaccination centres" being opened.

The one at Epsom says it hopes to get "up to 1000 jabs a day administered soon".

But the PM has said that we will have 15million jabs administered by the middle of next month. That requires us to give 350,000 jabs a day. And if these mass vaccination centres can only give 1000 each per day, that's about 2% of the total required.

Not sure if I am missing something here, but this doesn't feel like a game-changer.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP.
I agree with your point about the financial position of the young. That is the biggest failing of my generation and the one above it.

But if everyone had had the "no more tax" attitude 75 years ago, there's never have been an NHS.

Me, I'd start with a wealth tax. People with combined property, savings and pension funds above £1m pay 1% of that per year in tax. Start to address the shocking transfer of wealth that has occurred from the younger to the older generation.

Stretching off topic here but I think every higher rate tax payer should really be able to accommodate an extra 1% of tax. For someone earning £50k, that 1% would only be on £12,500 ie £125 a year. That’s just over £10 a month, and an extra £10 a month for every £12k above £50k. If that stretches someone earning that much to breaking point then they’re not managing their finances well enough.

Unlike those of you who are older, youngsters already are taxed more aggressively through the student loan system.  50k is absolutely the wrong point to do it aswell. For families with kids and a student loan they lose 69% of anything they earn in the 50-60k bracket.  Easy to say it's just another 1% but these young people also have huge mortgages particularly in parts of the country where cost of living is far higher than here.

A youngster earning 60k in London is nothing like rich.  Should add this is my main point, it's much more money here than other areas.

[scawsby steve]

Back on topic, it's being reported in some newspapers today that it's possible that 1 in 5 of us may have had the virus.

I've always maintained that some of us have had the virus, but were never tested.

I'm pretty sure I had it a few months back, but of course it could have been flu. I'll never know now.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Back on topic, it's being reported in some newspapers today that it's possible that 1 in 5 of us may have had the virus.

I've always maintained that some of us have had the virus, but were never tested.

I'm pretty sure I had it a few months back, but of course it could have been flu. I'll never know now.

I think it is quite likely that something more than 1 in 10 of us have already had it.

We have almost certainly had something above 100,000 COVID deaths, if you include the undiagnosed ones in the first wave. It's pretty well established that the Infection Fatality Ratio is around 1%. That suggests that about 10 million people have had the virus, which would be about 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 of the population.

Hell of a long way from Herd Immunity though...

[Janso]

BFYP.
I agree with your point about the financial position of the young. That is the biggest failing of my generation and the one above it.

But if everyone had had the "no more tax" attitude 75 years ago, there's never have been an NHS.

Me, I'd start with a wealth tax. People with combined property, savings and pension funds above £1m pay 1% of that per year in tax. Start to address the shocking transfer of wealth that has occurred from the younger to the older generation.

Stretching off topic here but I think every higher rate tax payer should really be able to accommodate an extra 1% of tax. For someone earning £50k, that 1% would only be on £12,500 ie £125 a year. That’s just over £10 a month, and an extra £10 a month for every £12k above £50k. If that stretches someone earning that much to breaking point then they’re not managing their finances well enough.

Unlike those of you who are older, youngsters already are taxed more aggressively through the student loan system.  50k is absolutely the wrong point to do it aswell. For families with kids and a student loan they lose 69% of anything they earn in the 50-60k bracket.  Easy to say it's just another 1% but these young people also have huge mortgages particularly in parts of the country where cost of living is far higher than here.

A youngster earning 60k in London is nothing like rich.  Should add this is my main point, it's much more money here than other areas.

Not all young people have been to university though.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP.
I agree with your point about the financial position of the young. That is the biggest failing of my generation and the one above it.

But if everyone had had the "no more tax" attitude 75 years ago, there's never have been an NHS.

Me, I'd start with a wealth tax. People with combined property, savings and pension funds above £1m pay 1% of that per year in tax. Start to address the shocking transfer of wealth that has occurred from the younger to the older generation.

Stretching off topic here but I think every higher rate tax payer should really be able to accommodate an extra 1% of tax. For someone earning £50k, that 1% would only be on £12,500 ie £125 a year. That’s just over £10 a month, and an extra £10 a month for every £12k above £50k. If that stretches someone earning that much to breaking point then they’re not managing their finances well enough.

Unlike those of you who are older, youngsters already are taxed more aggressively through the student loan system.  50k is absolutely the wrong point to do it aswell. For families with kids and a student loan they lose 69% of anything they earn in the 50-60k bracket.  Easy to say it's just another 1% but these young people also have huge mortgages particularly in parts of the country where cost of living is far higher than here.

A youngster earning 60k in London is nothing like rich.  Should add this is my main point, it's much more money here than other areas.

See, you regularly make this point BFYP that people on those sorts of salaries aren't well-off. It betrays something of a lack of appreciation of what most people's lives are like.

See here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

In the latest data, from 2017/18, someone earning £50k pre-tax was at the 88th percentile. In other words, pretty much 9 out of every ten workers in the country earned less than them.

Someone earning £60k per year pre-tax was at the 92nd percentile.

How are you coming to the conclusion that those people are not well off? If people around the 90th income percentile are not well-off, the country is utterly off the rails.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I'd say in some parts of the country they are comfortable, absolutely.  I ask you how well off you'd feel earning 60k in London or the south bringing up a family as a youngster.

I would also agree with you, in many ways the country is off the rails. We are saddling our youngsters with huge debts, it is not sustainable. That's before you even talk about those on really low incomes who are stuck in a spiral of renting and living day to day.

[Filo]

I'd say in some parts of the country they are comfortable, absolutely.  I ask you how well off you'd feel earning 60k in London or the south bringing up a family as a youngster.

I would also agree with you, in many ways the country is off the rails. We are saddling our youngsters with huge debts, it is not sustainable. That's before you even talk about those on really low incomes who are stuck in a spiral of renting and living day to day.

What do you define as huge debt? It’s all relative, when I bought my house in 1988, the first think I thought is what have I done, how will I pay that off, and that was with massive fluctuations in the interest rates at that time, to the point when interest rates went up to 14% I was resigned that day to having my house repossessed, thankfully it never came to that

[NickDRFC]

BFYP.
I agree with your point about the financial position of the young. That is the biggest failing of my generation and the one above it.

But if everyone had had the "no more tax" attitude 75 years ago, there's never have been an NHS.

Me, I'd start with a wealth tax. People with combined property, savings and pension funds above £1m pay 1% of that per year in tax. Start to address the shocking transfer of wealth that has occurred from the younger to the older generation.

Stretching off topic here but I think every higher rate tax payer should really be able to accommodate an extra 1% of tax. For someone earning £50k, that 1% would only be on £12,500 ie £125 a year. That’s just over £10 a month, and an extra £10 a month for every £12k above £50k. If that stretches someone earning that much to breaking point then they’re not managing their finances well enough.

Unlike those of you who are older, youngsters already are taxed more aggressively through the student loan system.  50k is absolutely the wrong point to do it aswell. For families with kids and a student loan they lose 69% of anything they earn in the 50-60k bracket.  Easy to say it's just another 1% but these young people also have huge mortgages particularly in parts of the country where cost of living is far higher than here.

A youngster earning 60k in London is nothing like rich.  Should add this is my main point, it's much more money here than other areas.

I’m 34. I was last living in London 3 years ago earning a bit more than you’re talking about, living in an £1,800 a month one bed flat for rent alone and paying off my student loan. I was by no means raking it in and wouldn’t consider anyone on that salary in London rich but another 1 per cent tax wouldn’t have been a hardship for me and I wouldn’t have been against paying it if I knew it was having a positive impact elsewhere. That’s not me trying to boast, it’s having an appreciation that there are many, many millions who have nothing like that.

Would I have opted to bring up a family there? No. Could I have afforded to? Yes, again there are single parent families earning half that in London.

[drfchound]

The bbc sport football page is reporting that football being suspended again is becoming more likely.

[bpoolrover]

It will be a shame as it really helps a few of the lads I know that live alone, but if it is not safe I suppose has to be done

[bpoolrover]

Was there a reason the positive numbers were down today, sure I saw there was 46k today

[River Don]

BPR

The numbers always seem a bit random at weekends.

But it just might be that after a couple of weeks the effects of the post Christmas lockdowns are starting to appear in the figures.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Looking at the new cases by date of test, it's looking very much like we may have hit the peak around the end of last week.

Combination of the post Xmas surge working its way through, and the lockdown kicking in.

Let's hope the numbers come down quickly now, rather than stay at the frighteningly high levels they are currently at. Anything less than 60,000 in the headline figure tomorrow will suggest we are going in the right direction.


As it is, it's difficult to see how the daily deaths top out at less than 1000-1200 as a running average late this month. They were at about 750 a week ago, but still going up sharply the Xmas surge deaths have still to work through the system.

[River Don]

BST

But this would suggest lockdowns are actually effective...

Unless we're just reaching herd immunity levels and we can all relax. Again.

[bpoolrover]

Thank you river and bst for you answers, let’s hope they do start to reduce unfortunately the death numbers were very high thou again

[Bentley Bullet]

I very nearly posted earlier that maybe the stats are suggesting we've hit the peak, but I discarded the post because of the negative reactions I would have almost certainly got, telling me I was wrong!

Eh, it's gyand to be right for once!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Captain Hindsight BB.

Except you don't even get it right with hindsight. I posted at the end of last week that it looked like we might be turning the corner, so why should you have been worried about being told you were wrong? If you're wanting to join in and start posting sensible stuff instead of constantly looking to provoke the next argument, you're more than welcome.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST

But this would suggest lockdowns are actually effective...

Who'd have thought it RD?

Obviously none of the far-right "lockdowns don't work" gobshites who keep getting wheeled out time after time despite being wrong every time. And the backwoods Tory MPs who compare lockdowns to the Gulags.

[Bentley Bullet]

Captain Hindsight BB.

Except you don't even get it right with hindsight. I posted at the end of last week that it looked like we might be turning the corner, so why should you have been worried about being told you were wrong? If you're wanting to join in and start posting sensible stuff instead of constantly looking to provoke the next argument, you're more than welcome.

Albert Einsight BST.

Apologies if I blasphemed your Godlikeness on the forum by now ignoring your usual boringly negative, anti-government, politicising of the pandemic posts, but they are the only bit of hindsight that I can almost certainly guarantee to occur. I say almost because now you tell me you actually produced a positive post at the end of last week!

Too late, Albert.

[i_ateallthepies]

You really do make yourself look stupid with posts like that BB.  You're an intelligent man but so wrapped up in your personal animosities that you're completely blind to it.

[River Don]

As my old Nan used to say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

Sometimes a good rant online can be entertaining but these now longstanding animosities are tiring.

[Bentley Bullet]

You really do make yourself look stupid with posts like that BB.  You're an intelligent man but so wrapped up in your personal animosities that you're completely blind to it.

Pies, I never asked Albert to get involved. He took it upon himself in his own inimitable fashion. Who else would refer to himself as judge and jury by saying "I posted at the end of last week that it looked like we might be turning the corner, so why should you have been worried about being told you were wrong?"

Don't you agree that such comments can only come from someone with a serious godlike attitude?

[i_ateallthepies]

BB, this will be my last post on this as I too find these petty squabbles tiresome, nevertheless you asked a question and unlike some I'll answer it.
No I don't agree, not in the slightest.  What BST said was absolutely true, he did make that post last week and is entitled to point it out.

There you are, that's my answer.  Come back with another question if you like but I'll leave it at that.

[Bentley Bullet]

So, because he said it last week, does that mean because it came from him I needn't have worried about being wrong because he (in his godlike status) had already confirmed it to be correct?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB
You didn't say you were worried about being wrong.

You said you were worried about being told you were wrong.

If you're going to insist on playing the WUM to whip up arguments, at least have the self-respect to get your story right before you start.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, no, I didn't say I was "worried" about being wrong, YOU did! The only time I mentioned being worried about being wrong was in the form of a question to 'Pies, in reference to you saying it.

What I said was "I discarded the post because of the negative reactions I would have almost certainly got, telling me I was wrong."