Politics in General

[Gavin Chipper]

I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc.

However, you have to watch out for nonsense like this.

[Graeme Cole]

I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc.

However, you have to watch out for nonsense like this.

I still think Caroline Lucas' proposed cabinet is preferable to what we have now.

[Gavin Chipper]

I still think PR is preferable to what we have now. And we'd also have a decent number of Greens etc.

However, you have to watch out for nonsense like this.

I still think Caroline Lucas' proposed cabinet is preferable to what we have now.

It would be hard not to be.

But on further reflection, it's not just nonsense - it's unacceptable. It's just sexism. It doesn't matter whether it's against males or females. If some male politician had suggested an all-male cabinet it would probably escalate to a resignation pretty quickly.

[Marc Meakin]

Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees

[Ian Volante]

Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees

Not clear that that's why he's doing it, or if he is, that it's a guarantee.

[Marc Meakin]

Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees

Not clear that that's why he's doing it, or if he is, that it's a guarantee.

It seems quite clear that although there was a majority of 53 % or whatever it was after the referendum , there is no majority for Brexit amongst the house of commons so it was either to go back to the people with a general election or stop the majority of MPs scuppering Brexit

[Ian Volante]

Anyway , proroguing is it a good thing ?.
It seems a little undemocratic but I am getting so fed up with Brexit dragging on , if this is the only way to GUARANTEE we leave on Halloween then so be it.
I think the Queen probably agrees

Not clear that that's why he's doing it, or if he is, that it's a guarantee.

It seems quite clear that although there was a majority of 53 % or whatever it was after the referendum , there is no majority for Brexit amongst the house of commons so it was either to go back to the people with a general election or stop the majority of MPs scuppering Brexit

And not to force the commons to agree to a new deal, or for other more arcane reasons that I can't be bothered dreaming up right now?

[Gavin Chipper]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

[Marc Meakin]

I though Morris dancing was so old it couldn't be racist in origin.
The Black and White Minstrel show is a different kettle of fish.
All fake tanning should be considered racist.
Think of the amount of odious people in the public eye that would be shunned

[Gavin Chipper]

I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?

Religious objections would have to be respected.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

That shit is not racist...
Certainly not on this side of the Atlantic.

Minstrel shows, segregation, blackface etc etc etc... These are american problems. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and the civil rights movement... all happened in the USA, because it was necessary there at that time.

If one of the impacts of globalisation is that all 'civilised' countries feel compelled to take on the social baggage of the US, even when there are no local historical examples that justify taking on such baggage... then fuck globalisation.

[Thomas Carey]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Let's ask this community of almost exclusively white people!

[Gavin Chipper]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Let's ask this community of almost exclusively white people!

Well it can be put as a more general question of whether someone's intent makes something -ist or whether it's someone taking offence from it.

[Marc Meakin]

I have strong views on the ' right to be offended ' generation.
Any comedian or public speaker who charge money for you to see them because you want to see them.
Should not be pilloried for the things they say on stage.
This would be different if they were on the TV , without s prior warning at least
Equally if someone posts something on their own timeline on Facebook, they should not be sacked from your jobs, be removed from their positions etc.
Craig Beavers is an Islamaphobe amongst over things but was removed from his position at WESPA for his own private views which I believe is wrong , regardless of it being racist or not.
I do feel sorry for some people who lose their jobs or positions for a tweet posted years ago, but that is s risk as Twitter is very public.
As for black face , brown face.
It's all about context.
If you watch Breakfast at Tiffany's, the Japanese role played by Mickey Rooney is cringey beyond belief but Americans at the time we're still sensitive , at the time , about the War and were loathe to use Japanese actors.
Trudeau's black face faux Pas are not an act of a racist any more than Prince Harry dressing up as Hitler makes him a Nazi.
Going into people's past to denigrate them really irks me.
What next.
Greta Thunberg shits her pants in IKEA 15 years ago , probably.

[Fiona T]

Blackface/brownface was always racist. But the general awareness of that fact that it's racist, and why, has only come to light relatively recently. I think Trudeau was absolutely right in his handling of it - he acknowledged it was offensive, said he hadn't realised at the time and apologised genuinely.

Intent does matter - if there was no intent to be racist, then it is forgiveable. But ignorance is not always an excuse, and people need to be more aware and think about whether language and actions might be offensive - not treading on eggshells, but just applying a bit of common sense.

[Marc Meakin]

Blackface/brownface was always racist. But the general awareness of that fact that it's racist, and why, has only come to light relatively recently. I think Trudeau was absolutely right in his handling of it - he acknowledged it was offensive, said he hadn't realised at the time and apologised genuinely.

Intent does matter - if there was no intent to be racist, then it is forgiveable. But ignorance is not always an excuse, and people need to be more aware and think about whether language and actions might be offensive - not treading on eggshells, but just applying a bit of common sense.

I like to use a more common sense approach.
If someone told a funny story about death or a funeral you may laugh if it's funny but if you have recently been bereaved it naturally would be upsetting.
If racism and bigotry is mocked and laughed at and ridiculed for what it is then it is ok.
I once watched a one man show where Warren Mitchell was playing Alf Garnett ( you may need to Google it )
on the stage ,well he is ,racist sexist ,a right wing bigot.
The Audience was largely Afro Caribbean , they could see that the character was one to laugh at , not with.
Which bears no comparison to someone like say Roy 'Chubby ' Brown.
It's all about context and intent in my opinion.
Look at what happened to Danny Baker to see how it's the world going mad at not giving someone the benefit of the doubt and get on their high horses.

Maybe as someone from a Jewish heritage I have developed a thick skin and am not averse to a little self depreciation, means my opinions are skewed.

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.

Is Papa Lazarou from The League of Gentlemen racist? I would say not. Is it offensive? Well I'm not sure things are objectively offensive as offensiveness is largely in the eye of the beholder, but I don't think most viewers would have been offended by it.

Any comedian or public speaker who charge money for you to see them because you want to see them.
Should not be pilloried for the things they say on stage.

I'm not sure I'd go this far though. They could be inciting violence etc. Plus even within the realms of what would be allowed under freedom of speech (inciting violence would be a crime), they can say what they want, sure, but people can also say what they want about what they've just heard.

[Marc Meakin]

I did mean their jokes rather than inciting violence.
Critics obviously can diss the performance.
But don't call out ,say , Jimmy Carr , for being bear the knuckle when it's part of his act.
Obviously if repeated on twitter then that's a different matter

[Gavin Chipper]

I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?

Religious objections would have to be respected.

I can imagine two excuse scenarios.

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

And:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because I think there is this magic guy in the sky who doesn't want me to."

"Oh, of course that's completely fine. This is definitely a valid concern that you have."

People could just lie about the reason anyway:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

"Sorry, you didn't let me finish. It might cause them to get autism - in the afterlife."

[Marc Meakin]

I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?

Religious objections would have to be respected.

I can imagine two excuse scenarios.

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

And:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because I think there is this magic guy in the sky who doesn't want me to."

"Oh, of course that's completely fine. This is definitely a valid concern that you have."

People could just lie about the reason anyway:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

"Sorry, you didn't let me finish. It might cause them to get autism - in the afterlife."

It's a slippery slope.
If compulsory vaccinations become law then it won't be long before people get chipped.
It's all about civil liberties in the end.
How would you feel about compulsory circumcisions because it s healthier

[Ian Volante]

I thought I might have posted about this before but I can't find it. Anyway I read this about whether vaccinations should be made compulsory. Obviously it makes sense that parents with anti-scientific views shouldn't be able to stop their children from being vaccinated, since vaccination would help their children and indeed the rest of the population through herd immunity. So that's settled, right?

I can imagine two excuse scenarios.

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

And:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because I think there is this magic guy in the sky who doesn't want me to."

"Oh, of course that's completely fine. This is definitely a valid concern that you have."

People could just lie about the reason anyway:

"I can't have my children vaccinated because it might cause them to get autism."

"No. This has been debunked. The vaccination is compulsory."

"Sorry, you didn't let me finish. It might cause them to get autism - in the afterlife."

It's a slippery slope.
If compulsory vaccinations become law then it won't be long before people get chipped.
It's all about civil liberties in the end.
How would you feel about compulsory circumcisions because it s healthier

Fine, same as for vaccinations. I quite like not losing friends and family regularly to disease.

[Gavin Chipper]

It's a slippery slope.
If compulsory vaccinations become law then it won't be long before people get chipped.
It's all about civil liberties in the end.
How would you feel about compulsory circumcisions because it s healthier

I think this is a bit silly really. You have to take things on their own merits rather than just saying that this would lead to that or the other.

And if we're talking about vaccinating children, then the only "civil liberties" you might be infringing is the parents', but it's not them that really matter here. The children don't get to decide anyway. And I'm all for overriding parents for the good of the child. In fact the opposite could happen with circumcision. I would make it illegal for parents to have their children circumcised (except in pressing medical cases), so this would be the state overriding parents again for the good of the child. (The evidence for circumcision being healthier is limited at best and is easily outweighed by the fact that you're performing a fucking amputation.)

Edit - But my main point originally was not really specifically that vaccinations should be compulsory, but that religious beliefs should not be treated with any more importance than any other beliefs or opinions that people hold. And while this is the case, people can just claim religious beliefs for anything anyway - such as believing that a vaccine causes autism in the afterlife, which would be a valid get-out the way things are. It's completely insane.

[Fiona T]

I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.

When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.

When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.

I remember my big sisters gollywog doll.
There was nothing racist about a child's plaything , from the child's perspective at least

[Fiona T]

I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.

When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.

I remember my big sisters gollywog doll.
There was nothing racist about a child's plaything , from the child's perspective at least

The child's plaything was a racist trope. The child playing with it was not. Again one of those things where the realisation of how and why it's racist has only infiltrated the public awareness over the last few decades. I'm sure those of us who are old enough remember collecting the gollys on Robinson's Jam.

Was pretty shocked to see a toy shop in Australia still selling them!

[Gavin Chipper]

I always think it's weird when hospitals try to stop people from being taken to other countries for treatment such as the case outlined here and here.

In this case the court has ruled that the girl can go abroad, but I've seen other cases where they've ruled against.

A hospital might argue that further treatment would be futile and a waste of the NHS's money, but then if the parents then want to take the child abroad as a response to this, then that's just out of their jurisdiction. It's nothing to do with them and they shouldn't try to prevent it.

To argue that a treatment would be futile is irrelevant to whether someone else can try to treat them because it's not their problem. To argue that it's not in the child's best interests seems a bit of a strange argument. What does it mean to be in someone's best interests? If someone isn't on life support and could breathe for themselves, then I don't think it would be a question regardless of any quality of life. Does being on life support really make all the difference? I don't see why it should.

[Marc Meakin]

When reading this, the (fictitious) example that came to mind was from the excellent read "The Book Thief" where Hitler Youth Nico Liersch applies blackface to be like his sporting hero Jesse Owens - clearly admiration and imitation.

But I suspect such innocent examples are few and far between, and anyone choosing to do so today should be very aware of the wider implications.

I remember my big sisters gollywog doll.
There was nothing racist about a child's plaything , from the child's perspective at least

The child's plaything was a racist trope. The child playing with it was not. Again one of those things where the realisation of how and why it's racist has only infiltrated the public awareness over the last few decades. I'm sure those of us who are old enough remember collecting the gollys on Robinson's Jam.

Was pretty shocked to see a toy shop in Australia still selling them!

I went to the set of Heartbeat recently in Yorkshire and Gollywog merchandise was sold in all the giftshops

[Marc Meakin]

I always think it's weird when hospitals try to stop people from being taken to other countries for treatment such as the case outlined here and here.

In this case the court has ruled that the girl can go abroad, but I've seen other cases where they've ruled against.

A hospital might argue that further treatment would be futile and a waste of the NHS's money, but then if the parents then want to take the child abroad as a response to this, then that's just out of their jurisdiction. It's nothing to do with them and they shouldn't try to prevent it.

To argue that a treatment would be futile is irrelevant to whether someone else can try to treat them because it's not their problem. To argue that it's not in the child's best interests seems a bit of a strange argument. What does it mean to be in someone's best interests? If someone isn't on life support and could breathe for themselves, then I don't think it would be a question regardless of any quality of life. Does being on life support really make all the difference? I don't see why it should.

Surely , the cost versus the benefits must be a factor.

[Gavin Chipper]

I always think it's weird when hospitals try to stop people from being taken to other countries for treatment such as the case outlined here and here.

In this case the court has ruled that the girl can go abroad, but I've seen other cases where they've ruled against.

A hospital might argue that further treatment would be futile and a waste of the NHS's money, but then if the parents then want to take the child abroad as a response to this, then that's just out of their jurisdiction. It's nothing to do with them and they shouldn't try to prevent it.

To argue that a treatment would be futile is irrelevant to whether someone else can try to treat them because it's not their problem. To argue that it's not in the child's best interests seems a bit of a strange argument. What does it mean to be in someone's best interests? If someone isn't on life support and could breathe for themselves, then I don't think it would be a question regardless of any quality of life. Does being on life support really make all the difference? I don't see why it should.

Surely , the cost versus the benefits must be a factor.

But what are the costs? If the parents want to take the child abroad then from the NHS and hospital's point of view it's not financial.

[Marc Meakin]

But surely if she is an NHS patient then any medical costs would have to be paid by the the NHS.

[Fiona T]

I think there are two issues here -

1) Hospitals/doctors abroad that prey on the desperation of vulnerable parents and promise unproven treatments, often without having even seen the child.
2) Cost to the NHS of picking up the pieces when things don't go to plan, which can be significant.

[Gavin Chipper]

But surely if she is an NHS patient then any medical costs would have to be paid by the the NHS.

I think there are two issues here -

1) Hospitals/doctors abroad that prey on the desperation of vulnerable parents and promise unproven treatments, often without having even seen the child.
2) Cost to the NHS of picking up the pieces when things don't go to plan, which can be significant.

I know in some cases, private money has been raised for treatment abroad and they've still been prevented from going. And I'm sure in such cases some sort of legal agreement can be made regarding the NHS's financial responsibility. In any case, the cost to the NHS doesn't appear to have been an issue raised in court.

It just seems like the hospital are saying "We can't treat this person any more. Oh and by the way, just to spite you, we're going to try and stop anyone else from doing so either."

The way I see it, they're a hospital. It's completely outside of their role and beyond their jurisdiction to be trying to stop someone going somewhere else for treatment.

[Paul Worsley]

The way I see it, they're a hospital. It's completely outside of their role and beyond their jurisdiction to be trying to stop someone going somewhere else for treatment.

The doctor's duty of care is to the patient, not to the parents/next of kin. If the doctor believes that a procedure or transferal would cause unnecessary distress to the patient, then he/she should refuse to do it. Doctors have to deal with decisions like this all the time. If you were to check notes on patients on a typical geriatric ward you would almost always find someone with a DNR (do not resuscitate). Often the cases where patients are refused treatment are ones where there is virtually zero chance of success, and yet considerable chance of increased suffering for the patient.

[Marc Meakin]

Looking for the like button

[Gavin Chipper]

The way I see it, they're a hospital. It's completely outside of their role and beyond their jurisdiction to be trying to stop someone going somewhere else for treatment.

The doctor's duty of care is to the patient, not to the parents/next of kin. If the doctor believes that a procedure or transferal would cause unnecessary distress to the patient, then he/she should refuse to do it. Doctors have to deal with decisions like this all the time. If you were to check notes on patients on a typical geriatric ward you would almost always find someone with a DNR (do not resuscitate). Often the cases where patients are refused treatment are ones where there is virtually zero chance of success, and yet considerable chance of increased suffering for the patient.

I think in most of the cases of transferring to another country, the patient is generally quite brain-damaged or otherwise not consciously aware, so there is unlikely to be any distress. I've heard in the past people using the word "dignity", but really that's nothing to do with the patient and their interests anyway, but more that people on the outside want things to conform to their nice view of the world.

So basically, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think distress to the patient was used in this case as a reason (I certainly don't think it came up in the BBC articles I linked to).

I also think that in most cases like this, nothing good is likely to come from the treatment, but on the other hand, I don't think anything bad probably will either (other than the waste of money). But if the money has been privately raised, and there aren't genuine pressing medical reasons to stop the transfer, I say let them do it.

[Fiona T]

I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.

Haha - This thread just reminded me of my Simon Mayo Confession; "Flora" being my confessor alter-ego.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HWo5 ... MwcGVuNklV

As a 7 year old, the obvious solution to the "JONE" problem, was to paint her face black - done for entirely practical reasons without any racist intent. Needless to say, it wasn't entirely successful...

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm not sure that something can really be described as racist if there is no intent. You can call it offensive, but even then nothing is offensive in a vacuum. If someone decides to paint their face black in their own room alone and dance about a bit, and then wash their face before anyone sees them, then if their motivation isn't malign (they might just be a little bit crazy) then I don't think it's racist or offensive.

Haha - This thread just reminded me of my Simon Mayo Confession; "Flora" being my confessor alter-ego.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HWo5 ... MwcGVuNklV

As a 7 year old, the obvious solution to the "JONE" problem, was to paint her face black - done for entirely practical reasons without any racist intent. Needless to say, it wasn't entirely successful...

Just listened to that. So that was you?

[Fiona T]

Haha - This thread just reminded me of my Simon Mayo Confession; "Flora" being my confessor alter-ego.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HWo5 ... MwcGVuNklV

As a 7 year old, the obvious solution to the "JONE" problem, was to paint her face black - done for entirely practical reasons without any racist intent. Needless to say, it wasn't entirely successful...

Just listened to that. So that was you?

It was.

[Jon O'Neill]

I was having a play around with some HMRC numbers to see what the impact of a completely different income tax structure would be.

I'm calling this the Jono proposal and my idea is a 20k tax free allowance, then 10% on all earnings to 50k, then 75% on all earnings above that.

- Everyone who earns up to 100k will be better off
- Those who earn between 20-50k will basically be getting a 10% net pay rise overnight
- This will raise £6bn for the treasury

Obviously this will hurt those who earn 100k+. Those in the 100k-150k bracket will on average have their net monthly wage reduced to a measly £5,300 per month.

Would it fly? I doubt it. Partly (mostly?) because the 1m people who would lose out in this system have a louder voice than the 30m who would benefit.

[Fiona T]

I was having a play around with some HMRC numbers to see what the impact of a completely different income tax structure would be.

I'm calling this the Jono proposal and my idea is a 20k tax free allowance, then 10% on all earnings to 50k, then 75% on all earnings above that.

- Everyone who earns up to 100k will be better off
- Those who earn between 20-50k will basically be getting a 10% net pay rise overnight
- This will raise £6bn for the treasury

Obviously this will hurt those who earn 100k+. Those in the 100k-150k bracket will on average have their net monthly wage reduced to a measly £5,300 per month.

Would it fly? I doubt it. Partly (mostly?) because the 1m people who would lose out in this system have a louder voice than the 30m who would benefit.

You'll get me started on my hobby horse

The way people work is changing - there are around 5 million people not in traditional permanent employment - working for themselves, and the tax system is woefully ill suited to them. A big chunk of the tax paid is employer's national insurance. As an employee you don't see it, but your employer is paying it on your behalf. Your actual tax rate is probably nearer 40% for basic rate payers. The whole system needs a shakeup, so that this isn't hidden, but is part of the standard tax rate, then the constant demonising of the self employed (by HMG/HMRC) will no longer be necessary. The majority of people who work for themselves are not primarily doing so to avoid tax (although in some cases, their employer may have forced them to work that way to avoid their ErNI - e.g. high profile BBC cases recently) but HMRC seems to think that is the sole motivation, and their clampdowns are likely to trammel the flexible workforce just at the time when the country is most likely to need it.

[David Williams]

What assumptions have you made about changes in behaviour of those affected? I imagine it's pretty well-documented as to what happened when the top rate went up from 40% to 50% and down to 45%. (I have a feeling it didn't change the total tax take very much, but I haven't checked it out.) The trouble is that those who have some control over what they do, do less (NHS surgeons, for example), and the real high earners bugger off and pay their taxes somewhere else. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 30% of all income tax. I'd quite like them to stick around.

[Jon O'Neill]

I was having a play around with some HMRC numbers to see what the impact of a completely different income tax structure would be.

I'm calling this the Jono proposal and my idea is a 20k tax free allowance, then 10% on all earnings to 50k, then 75% on all earnings above that.

- Everyone who earns up to 100k will be better off
- Those who earn between 20-50k will basically be getting a 10% net pay rise overnight
- This will raise £6bn for the treasury

Obviously this will hurt those who earn 100k+. Those in the 100k-150k bracket will on average have their net monthly wage reduced to a measly £5,300 per month.

Would it fly? I doubt it. Partly (mostly?) because the 1m people who would lose out in this system have a louder voice than the 30m who would benefit.

You'll get me started on my hobby horse

The way people work is changing - there are around 5 million people not in traditional permanent employment - working for themselves, and the tax system is woefully ill suited to them. A big chunk of the tax paid is employer's national insurance. As an employee you don't see it, but your employer is paying it on your behalf. Your actual tax rate is probably nearer 40% for basic rate payers. The whole system needs a shakeup, so that this isn't hidden, but is part of the standard tax rate, then the constant demonising of the self employed (by HMG/HMRC) will no longer be necessary. The majority of people who work for themselves are not primarily doing so to avoid tax (although in some cases, their employer may have forced them to work that way to avoid their ErNI - e.g. high profile BBC cases recently) but HMRC seems to think that is the sole motivation, and their clampdowns are likely to trammel the flexible workforce just at the time when the country is most likely to need it.

Interesting. Maybe I'll factor that into the spreadsheet tomorrow somehow.

What assumptions have you made about changes in behaviour of those affected? I imagine it's pretty well-documented as to what happened when the top rate went up from 40% to 50% and down to 45%. (I have a feeling it didn't change the total tax take very much, but I haven't checked it out.) The trouble is that those who have some control over what they do, do less (NHS surgeons, for example), and the real high earners bugger off and pay their taxes somewhere else. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 30% of all income tax. I'd quite like them to stick around.

No assumptions built in on behaviour. It's simply the 2018/19 tax year numbers but multiplied out to my new tax bands.

I'd be interested to see some documentation about what happens in general when the top rate moved around by a few %. I'd love to see evidence or studies to substantiate people doing less as the tax rate gets higher, because it doesn't particularly resonate with my experience. I also struggle with the buggering off argument. It's not like there's a wealth of English-speaking countries with established financial services sectors screaming out for middle management and paying £250k salaries for the privilege.

Whenever I have this conversation with people in real life the starting point is always that there would be a mass exodus of all the greatest minds and business would fall to its knees. Most of the people I have this conversation with are pretty clueless about the macro-economics of a country like this and their views are clouded by their instincts, which are guided by their own biases and experiences. I am one of these people as well.

[Gavin Chipper]

Well, this is an interesting discussion.

The trouble is that those who have some control over what they do, do less (NHS surgeons, for example), and the real high earners bugger off and pay their taxes somewhere else. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 30% of all income tax. I'd quite like them to stick around.

Why would those who have some control over what they do do less? If they're paying more tax, then they'd be taking home less money, so their response to that is to work less and take home even less money? That's pretty much the textbook definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face, and it's completely illogical. Obviously if they work less, then they'd be paying less tax, but if you take that do it's logical conclusions, no-one would do any work so they don't have to pay any tax. (The relevant thing is obviously how much money you get, not the money you're not getting.)

And as for all the high earners leaving the country if they have to pay more tax, firstly I don't really buy it, and secondly I don't think it would matter as much as you think it would if they did. First of all, people who live in a place (which is pretty much all people, including the rich ones) generally have friends and family there, and might have children in school as well. Simply moving to another country would be a massive upheaval, and how much money you earn would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the amount of hassle and upset that this would cause.

Secondly, who are these high earners? Do you really think that there is no-one there who could do their job if they left? It really isn't the case the the "best" people are earning the most money. And a lot of the biggest earners are working in the financial industry, which means they are basically just siphoning money, adding no value to the world. Money is basically just tokens for resources, so the people that pay the most tax are still taking more net resources from the world than anyone else - resources that don't really intrinsically belong to anyone - so let's not pretend that they are somehow net contributors to society. Sure, the tax they pay is specifically going to the government and paying for our infrastructure, services etc., and it's money that might otherwise not have gone in this direction, but I refer you back to my earlier point that their jobs really could be done by other people.

[David Williams]

If tax rates are very low, increasing them generates more revenue. Keep increasing them, and if you reach a point when a rate increase doesn't increase the revenue, you conclude that going above that point would actually reduce the revenue. There's a rate that maximises the return. Lengthy theorising about motivation is irrelevant. Look for evidence of what actually happens.

https://fullfact.org/economy/did-cuttin ... 8-billion/

I think this was in the back of my mind. Gist of it seems to be that reducing the top rate from 50% to 45% made very little difference to the total revenue. So presumably increasing it from 45% to 50% would make very little difference. So the current top rate is around the optimum level.

[Fiona T]

Don't underestimate behaviour -

Recent example - changes to the pension rules mean that NHS consultants are no longer working extra hours, because it simply isn't worth their time. Massive impact on the NHS.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -tax-bills

Many of the top earners are 50+, have decent savings, and will simply say "no thanks" and retire early.

Personally, when I was an employee, at the point I hit the higher tax band I reduced my working hours because my time was more important to me than the relatively small amount extra in my take home pay for the extra hours worked. I'm definitely not alone.

Lower tax rates mean more money being spent. If I go and spend my (already taxed) £1 in the shop, that will be taxed with VAT, tax on the shop employee wages, corporation tax on the shop's profits (unless I spend it in Starbucks!) The problem is where people are saving their money rather than spending it, so that extra tax doesn't find it's way into the treasury coffers, and a lot of that is related to confidence in the economy.

[Jon O'Neill]

If tax rates are very low, increasing them generates more revenue. Keep increasing them, and if you reach a point when a rate increase doesn't increase the revenue, you conclude that going above that point would actually reduce the revenue. There's a rate that maximises the return. Lengthy theorising about motivation is irrelevant. Look for evidence of what actually happens.

https://fullfact.org/economy/did-cuttin ... 8-billion/

I think this was in the back of my mind. Gist of it seems to be that reducing the top rate from 50% to 45% made very little difference to the total revenue. So presumably increasing it from 45% to 50% would make very little difference. So the current top rate is around the optimum level.

As the article says (and Full Fact is a great website), you can basically throw out the first year of any significant change to the tax rate as companies will allow their employees to just pay the tax in the following year (or presumably pay it sooner if the Jono proposal goes through). In reality total tax paid has been increasing fairly consistently over the last 20 years, with a notable dip after the recession. But there are too many other factors at play here to make any solid conclusions about what is happening at the top 1% level - inflation, lower tax bands changing, other economic effects, a changing workforce.

[Jon O'Neill]

Don't underestimate behaviour -

Recent example - changes to the pension rules mean that NHS consultants are no longer working extra hours, because it simply isn't worth their time. Massive impact on the NHS.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -tax-bills

Many of the top earners are 50+, have decent savings, and will simply say "no thanks" and retire early.

If I'm understanding this change correctly (perfectly possible that I am not) then it means they would actually lose out by earning more, not earn more but more slowly, as in the example above - so a big difference. Also, this is a survey - not actual behaviour that can be pointed to - another big difference.

Personally, when I was an employee, at the point I hit the higher tax band I reduced my working hours because my time was more important to me than the relatively small amount extra in my take home pay for the extra hours worked. I'm definitely not alone.

That's not really my experience. My experience is that the people who reach the higher salary bands are those with the most ability and motivation, who would be less likely to put their feet up because the value proposition just decreased slightly. Also my experience is that the higher the salary gets, the bigger the salary increases get between job changes or promotions, which kind of counteracts the disincentive that the next £10k on your base salary means slightly less than the previous £10k as it's easier to achieve anyway.

Lower tax rates mean more money being spent. If I go and spend my (already taxed) £1 in the shop, that will be taxed with VAT, tax on the shop employee wages, corporation tax on the shop's profits (unless I spend it in Starbucks!) The problem is where people are saving their money rather than spending it, so that extra tax doesn't find it's way into the treasury coffers, and a lot of that is related to confidence in the economy.

I agree with your final point - which is why I'm putting £200 extra per month in the pocket of people who can't afford to get onto the property ladder, and taking it out of the pockets of those who are leaving huge amounts to their kids (let's not get started on my next proposal - 100% inheritance tax!)

[Gavin Chipper]

(let's not get started on my next proposal - 100% inheritance tax!)

That's quite a big step. What about people giving stuff away when they're not dead? is that any better?

Anyway, a while ago I came across this video about a tax on land value. I haven't rewatched it, so I can't remember exactly what it says, but I remember thinking it didn't seem like such a bad idea, and is harder to avoid. Also, a Wikipedia article on it. Some would argue it's better than taxing work and death.

[David Williams]

Never understood why people are so against Inheritance Tax, even people who are never going to pay it.

One objection is that it's supposedly being taxed twice on the same money, yet typically it's someone leaving a million pound house they paid half a crown for during the war, a profit that's completely tax free. Yet the same people get paid after income tax has been deducted and go out and suffer VAT when they spend it, which is taxing the same money twice on the same day.

And if you could choose to pay less tax when you really needed the money, and more when you had some to spare, that would be when you've paid off your mortgage, the kids have left home, and your parents die and leave you a house.

I thought the one sensible proposal the Tories made at the last election was the one about paying for care homes that way (or something like that) and they had to drop it after a couple of days and never recovered. I'm never going to make it as a politician.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Am I the only one really looking forward to the election, purely because I get to turn into Peter Snow for 6 weeks?

STATS PERCENTAGES THRESHOLDS BATTLEGROUNDS GAINS POLLS LOSSES SWINGS BALANCES OF POWER MARGINALS

[JimBentley]

I'm calling this the Jono proposal and my idea is a 20k tax free allowance, then 10% on all earnings to 50k, then 75% on all earnings above that.

I endorse this proposal wholeheartedly.

As to the avoidance thing, I remember when I was about 13 or 14 having a conversation on this subject with my aunt and uncle (who are both accountants). I was saying "why can't we just tax people at 90% above £1 million?" and they were saying "because they'd just leave the country and wouldn't pay anything at all". I could probably make better arguments now but then I remember I just I said "well why can't people stop being so greedy?" and stomped off to my room to play Starquake or Dynamite Dan or something.

[Paul Worsley]

I endorse this proposal wholeheartedly.

A 75% tax rate on earnings over 50K kills aspiration. Why would anyone start a small business, with all the risk and all the extra work bother?

[Jon O'Neill]

I endorse this proposal wholeheartedly.

A 75% tax rate on earnings over 50K kills aspiration. Why would anyone start a small business, with all the risk and all the extra work bother?

If you started a small business, wouldn't you pay corporation tax (which is much lower)? Unless you decided to pay yourself a pointlessly huge salary instead.

Of course corporation tax would be dramatically increased under the Jono/Jim regime as well.

[Fiona T]

I endorse this proposal wholeheartedly.

A 75% tax rate on earnings over 50K kills aspiration. Why would anyone start a small business, with all the risk and all the extra work bother?

If you started a small business, wouldn't you pay corporation tax (which is much lower)? Unless you decided to pay yourself a pointlessly huge salary instead.

Of course corporation tax would be dramatically increased under the Jono/Jim regime as well.

And how do you think money gets from the business to you?

The two are separate entities.

You have a business, you pay corp tax on profits.

To get those profits into your pocket, you either pay a salary (which is then subject to ErNI, EeNI and PAYE, but not corp tax), or you pay yourself a dividend after corp tax which is subject to dividend tax at the prevailing rate.

[Jon O'Neill]

A 75% tax rate on earnings over 50K kills aspiration. Why would anyone start a small business, with all the risk and all the extra work bother?

If you started a small business, wouldn't you pay corporation tax (which is much lower)? Unless you decided to pay yourself a pointlessly huge salary instead.

Of course corporation tax would be dramatically increased under the Jono/Jim regime as well.

And how do you think money gets from the business to you?

The two are separate entities.

You have a business, you pay corp tax on profits.

To get those profits into your pocket, you either pay a salary (which is then subject to ErNI, EeNI and PAYE, but not corp tax), or you pay yourself a dividend after corp tax which is subject to dividend tax at the prevailing rate.

So corporation+dividend tax (which is much lower).
Of course dividend tax would be dramatically increased under the Jono/Jim regime as well.

None of this is to say that I accept the original premise, that higher tax kills aspiration. People are motivated by more than just cash.

[David Williams]

Let's not forget that in the second half of the 1970s the top income tax rate was 83% on incomes over £20,000 and the basic rate was 33%. It's not as if a 75% rate is a complete leap into the unknown.

The top rate was reduced to 40% in two stages in the 1980s, and the basic rate to 20% over a longer period. I believe that the total raised as a percentage of GDP hasn't changed much over the whole period, but the share of that paid by the top 1% or 5% or something has tripled. I've no idea why, but you might expect that a 75% top rate could reduce the total raised unless the basic rate was increased dramatically.

[Fiona T]

If you started a small business, wouldn't you pay corporation tax (which is much lower)? Unless you decided to pay yourself a pointlessly huge salary instead.

Of course corporation tax would be dramatically increased under the Jono/Jim regime as well.

And how do you think money gets from the business to you?

The two are separate entities.

You have a business, you pay corp tax on profits.

To get those profits into your pocket, you either pay a salary (which is then subject to ErNI, EeNI and PAYE, but not corp tax), or you pay yourself a dividend after corp tax which is subject to dividend tax at the prevailing rate.

So corporation+dividend tax (which is much lower).
Of course dividend tax would be dramatically increased under the Jono/Jim regime as well.

None of this is to say that I accept the original premise, that higher tax kills aspiration. People are motivated by more than just cash.

It's not "much lower".

Corporation tax + dividend tax pretty much equals employee National insurance + income tax.

The difference is pretty much the employer's NI, which goes back to my original point.

[Jon O'Neill]

I'd be interested to know how much different it is. Let's say we start a business together and make £100k profit in year 1. What would be the difference between us paying ourselves £12k salaries and taking £76k out in dividends, vs. paying ourselves £50k salaries? I'm not being lazy... genuinely can't get through the prose on the gov.uk site. I should know this.

Let's say they're exactly the same. Couldn't we sell the business with £76k of cash in the bank? Do we then pay capital gains? Whack it all into pensions? Buy securities? Entrepreneurial relief seems to mean that it will all get taxed at 10%?

Of course, under the Jono regime all of these loopholes would be closed, and I would still debate the premise that it would measurably stifle aspiration.

[Paul Worsley]

None of this is to say that I accept the original premise, that higher tax kills aspiration. People are motivated by more than just cash.

Just out of interest, how did you come up with 75%? If punitive tax doesn't kill aspiration why stop there? Why not 85% or 95% or even 100%?

[Jon O'Neill]

75% was a nice round number that took the overall picture into "profit" vs. the status quo.

With a high non-100% number there is still a financial reward for increasing income. At 100% this is not the case. Between 0% and 100% it's a sliding scale of how much financial reward you get. Apparently it's painstakingly obvious to everyone else that the aspiration-death tipping-point is somewhere between 40% (aspiration alive and well) and 75% (aspiration would be dead). For me it's nowhere near as clear.

In theory you could quite easily come up with a logarithmic function that never reaches 100% tax, so there's always a financial incentive for the absolute mercenaries.