Options

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] - This Place Is Not A Place Of Honour

13567113

Posts

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    It's a plan with literally no upsides. Even if all the over 50s went back to work and paid zero tax, how exactly would that benefit the economy again? Higher levels of strain on infrastructure and £0 of revenue to show for it.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Casual wrote: »
    It's a plan with literally no upsides. Even if all the over 50s went back to work and paid zero tax, how exactly would that benefit the economy again? Higher levels of strain on infrastructure and £0 of revenue to show for it.

    Plus, taking out any leisure expenditure that these otherwise retired over 50s would be putting into the economy

    japan on
  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    It's a plan with literally no upsides. Even if all the over 50s went back to work and paid zero tax, how exactly would that benefit the economy again? Higher levels of strain on infrastructure and £0 of revenue to show for it.

    From what I've read, UK pension doesn't even kick in until 66; so unless there's a whole lot of retired people in the 50-66 range this just seems more like a really good way to blow a giant hole in the revenue side of the budget.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    It's a plan with literally no upsides. Even if all the over 50s went back to work and paid zero tax, how exactly would that benefit the economy again? Higher levels of strain on infrastructure and £0 of revenue to show for it.

    From what I've read, UK pension doesn't even kick in until 66; so unless there's a whole lot of retired people in the 50-66 range this just seems more like a really good way to blow a giant hole in the revenue side of the budget.

    Also, unless it was only applied to those who HAD retired, an even distribution of employees across age bands would mean that about 30% of your current workforce is in that range band (50-66 as a portion of 18-66).

    Even if it's a third of that (highly unlikely), and they're not being paid significantly more (which as mentioned by someone earlier, not the way it usually works), you've just cut at least 10% of the total revenue from income tax.

    It's clearly a bribe to the voters most likely to be voting for them, and the usual "cut income then complain that spending also needs to be cut" bullshit from conservatives worldwide.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    It's a bribe, pure and simple. They know they've lost everyone who's on the fence below 50s (sadly there will always be insane Tory voters at all ages). But it's something they know utterly radioactive to Labour so they can scoop up hordes of older voters, who vote the most. Pathetic really.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    It's a plan with literally no upsides. Even if all the over 50s went back to work and paid zero tax, how exactly would that benefit the economy again? Higher levels of strain on infrastructure and £0 of revenue to show for it.

    From what I've read, UK pension doesn't even kick in until 66; so unless there's a whole lot of retired people in the 50-66 range this just seems more like a really good way to blow a giant hole in the revenue side of the budget.

    That's the state pension

    Anyone who retired at 50 will have set themselves up with a private pension into which they will have ploughed a lot of money

    So there are retired people in that bracket, and they're disproportionately the wealthy

    (Also worth bearing in mind that, in the UK, you are not taxed on income you pay into a pension, instead it's taxed as income when you draw it down after retirement, so this is in effect a whopping great retrospective tax break for high earners, since if this is introduced, there will be a huge chunk of their lifetime earnings that is never taxed)

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    For the moment at least this is just one newspaper reporting the treasury "discussing" the idea. There will always be catastrophically stupid ideas floating around every department and given this is on the same level of stupidity as "Trussenomics" until I see Sunak actually vocalising the idea in public, I'm going to assume this is just one of those ideas that won't make it out the discussion stage before someone who isn't a colossal moron steps on it.

  • Options
    Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    It's either:
    a) bait, so Labour oppose it and Tories can talk up helping older people without having to do anything
    b) signalling, so that rich older people know the Tories are in their corner and donate to the party
    c) a distraction, from something more insidious in the budget they'll hope people miss in all the talk
    d) stupidity.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    Good it's being reported so it can be nipped in the bud...oh wait our media is controlled by 50+...
    Dis' wrote: »
    It's either:
    a) bait, so Labour oppose it and Tories can talk up helping older people without having to do anything
    b) signalling, so that rich older people know the Tories are in their corner and donate to the party
    c) a distraction, from something more insidious in the budget they'll hope people miss in all the talk
    d) stupidity.

    It's all 4...

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Dis' wrote: »
    It's either:
    a) bait, so Labour oppose it and Tories can talk up helping older people without having to do anything
    b) signalling, so that rich older people know the Tories are in their corner and donate to the party
    c) a distraction, from something more insidious in the budget they'll hope people miss in all the talk
    d) stupidity.

    There's other options. eg - could be something that came up in a meeting that one of the more sensible Tories is trying to kill by leaking it to the press.

  • Options
    M-VickersM-Vickers Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »

    The Times has also been told that the Treasury is discussing giving people tax breaks to go back to work

    Discussion is at an early stage, but there's talk around allowances and even exempting over 50s from income tax

    Steven Swinford-Political Editor, The Times

    Tories just giving up on the millennial vote I see

    I think they should lower the limit to 48.

    Why yes, I am turning 48 this year, how did you guess ???

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    It's a plan with literally no upsides. Even if all the over 50s went back to work and paid zero tax, how exactly would that benefit the economy again? Higher levels of strain on infrastructure and £0 of revenue to show for it.

    Well, presumably they'd be spending that new income on things which would both get VAT and increase the velocity of money. But, you know, very indirectly and also just as possibly given to Spanish resort towns instead.

  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Without wishing to be condescending, this isn't that difficult.

    It's effectively a big tax cut. This will further starve public services to make them look worse so they can justify privatizing them.

    Shadowen on
  • Options
    AntinumericAntinumeric Registered User regular
    So my understanding of economics used to be taxes go into a big pot (or several if earmarked), which are then used to pay for things.
    But now it's something like "the government prints money to pay for things, and this raises inflation. Taxes effectively counteract this inflation as it can be considered to vanish once it reaches the government. When government spending is greater than tax receipts then inflation goes up, when it's lower then inflation either declines or stops."
    And wages are loosely coupled to inflation.

    So if this understanding is a good model, then cutting a huge chunk of income tax is going to spike our already grim inflation to wage ratio. Unless services are cut.

    In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    Yes it's a hilariously bad idea from the party let me remind that campaigns on 'Economic Frugality'. Wtf has happened to the Tories??

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    There's a step in the middle which is borrowing

    The government issues (sells) bonds (called "gilts" when they're UK government bonds) which essentially boil down to: give us an amount of money now, we will pay you a fixed rate of interest on it, and at the end of the maturity period return the original amount of money

    These are tradeable between investors, which puts constraints on how much money can be raised this way, and also impacts how much interest the government needs to pay to get investors to take them up

    Traditionally, they're regarded as the safest class of investment, as the risk of losing the money is the risk that something so dramatic happens to the country or the government that they aren't able to pay. The UK has a very long track record of consistently repaying. Because they're safe, you don't get a lot of interest.

    What this does though, is put an effective floor on interest rates for other forms of credit. If you have money and you're lending it or investing it, you wouldn't charge a rate of interest lower than you could get by investing in gilts, because you could just buy gilts and it would probably be a safer bet.

    This is what people usually mean when they talk about "money being cheap" or "money being expensive"

    Lots of government borrowing drives up interest rates, which usually drives up the cost of everything else
    Lots of money printing (quantitative easing) drives up interest rates because the payments on gilts are effectively less valuable (you can buy less with them)

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    It's a plan with literally no upsides. Even if all the over 50s went back to work and paid zero tax, how exactly would that benefit the economy again? Higher levels of strain on infrastructure and £0 of revenue to show for it.

    Well, presumably they'd be spending that new income on things which would both get VAT and increase the velocity of money. But, you know, very indirectly and also just as possibly given to Spanish resort towns instead.

    But all young people do is spend! That's why we can't buy houses in central London!

    Cut our taxes and see the VAT from artisanal small-batch sunflower milk lattes skyrocket

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    In Scottish politics today, contextual admissions!



    EXCLUSIVE: Students from less deprived background have 'door closed' to university due to SNP funding approach

    Every Scottish student accepted to Edinburgh Uni to study law came from a more deprived background or an underperforming state school.

    Why is this happening? The funding model for Higher Education.

    Universities have a cap on the number of places for Scottish fee students and are encouraged to widen access as much as possible.

    This means students from worse schools or more deprived areas are given priority

    tl;dr: The Scotsman (right wing broadsheet) is angry that private school kids didn't get into Edinburgh to study law but kids from poor areas and underperforming schools did, and thinks you should be too

    japan on
  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Won't someone think of the poor rich people

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I'm going to assume there's a bunch of other schools that have a law curriculum

  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I mean it depends what the line of "underperforming" is. If you're an ordinary person going to a state school where the teachers slog their guts out and the school is good, and that works against you, that's an incredibly dumb bit of policy which could wreck your future.

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I'm going to assume there's a bunch of other schools that have a law curriculum

    But they don't have the oomph that "University of Edinburgh" would have on a CV.

  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    "Less deprived" is quite the turn of phrase, isn't it?

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    I love how angry contextual admissions makes the right wing

    The basic principle is recognition of the fact that a straight-A student from a bad school is probably a higher performing student overall than a straight-A student from a good school

    Which is borne out by pretty solid data, to my understanding

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    That's why I spent my school days sabotaging the efforts of my classmates

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Burnage wrote: »
    "Less deprived" is quite the turn of phrase, isn't it?

    Strictly speaking it is accurate, as the funding criteria use the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation

    Income and wealth are factors but the index is not strictly an inverse of them

    Beyond a certain threshold it doesn't meaningfully distinguish between, say, comfortable two earner households and the super rich

    japan on
  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    I love how angry contextual admissions makes the right wing

    The basic principle is recognition of the fact that a straight-A student from a bad school is probably a higher performing student overall than a straight-A student from a good school

    Which is borne out by pretty solid data, to my understanding

    Perhaps both of those students should be given opportunities rather than one of them though? I feel like any education system which pits kids against each other like that is just wrongheaded

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I love how angry contextual admissions makes the right wing

    The basic principle is recognition of the fact that a straight-A student from a bad school is probably a higher performing student overall than a straight-A student from a good school

    Which is borne out by pretty solid data, to my understanding

    Perhaps both of those students should be given opportunities rather than one of them though? I feel like any education system which pits kids against each other like that is just wrongheaded

    They are, is the thing

    The object of the funding criteria is to incentivise the universities to identify high performing students more holistically than by grades alone. Edinburgh's one of the premier law universities in Scotland, so they can take their pick of A-grade students. The data says that A-grade students from deprived backgrounds do better than A-grade students from non-deprived backgrounds, so that's who they take preferentially.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    Hmm. OK. So yes we should be helping deprived students get top universities. But no we should not be telling children from richer families fuck you for working hard. Children don't pick their family background and if they work hard (regardless of means, getting top grades takes effort) they shouldn't be pushed out.
    I'm sure there's more to this story than presented. But if the only difference is background, that's ludicrously unfair to the child. And less deprived doesn't necessarily mean Lord Fotherby. I assume it covers a wide stretch of 'middle class'.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Hmm. OK. So yes we should be helping deprived students get top universities. But no we should not be telling children from richer families fuck you for working hard. Children don't pick their family background and if they work hard (regardless of means, getting top grades takes effort) they shouldn't be pushed out.
    I'm sure there's more to this story than presented. But if the only difference is background, that's ludicrously unfair to the child. And less deprived doesn't necessarily mean Lord Fotherby. I assume it covers a wide stretch of 'middle class'.

    The factors and weightings feeding into the index are summarised on the wiki page
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Index_of_Multiple_Deprivation

    It's deliberately only really sensitive to those circumstances that link to adverse outcomes, it didn't differentiate between the middle class and super rich

  • Options
    GiantGeek2020GiantGeek2020 Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I love how angry contextual admissions makes the right wing

    The basic principle is recognition of the fact that a straight-A student from a bad school is probably a higher performing student overall than a straight-A student from a good school

    Which is borne out by pretty solid data, to my understanding

    Perhaps both of those students should be given opportunities rather than one of them though? I feel like any education system which pits kids against each other like that is just wrongheaded

    They are, is the thing

    The object of the funding criteria is to incentivise the universities to identify high performing students more holistically than by grades alone. Edinburgh's one of the premier law universities in Scotland, so they can take their pick of A-grade students. The data says that A-grade students from deprived backgrounds do better than A-grade students from non-deprived backgrounds, so that's who they take preferentially.

    I can kind of understand those kids have basically been through the academic equivalent of Kumite so yeah they're going to be tougher and better at studying.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Hmm. OK. So yes we should be helping deprived students get top universities. But no we should not be telling children from richer families fuck you for working hard. Children don't pick their family background and if they work hard (regardless of means, getting top grades takes effort) they shouldn't be pushed out.
    I'm sure there's more to this story than presented. But if the only difference is background, that's ludicrously unfair to the child. And less deprived doesn't necessarily mean Lord Fotherby. I assume it covers a wide stretch of 'middle class'.

    The factors and weightings feeding into the index are summarised on the wiki page
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Index_of_Multiple_Deprivation

    It's deliberately only really sensitive to those circumstances that link to adverse outcomes, it didn't differentiate between the middle class and super rich

    Ok, then yeah, it's dumb. But I would assume Edinburgh uses more than just that weight to admit students. Are they for example requring the same grades from all students? Do they admister an additional entrance test? Do they interview all the students etc. I imagine it's more complex than presented. It might be coincidence they are all 'deprived'.
    Article is pay-walled so...no idea.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    This is about the university selecting between the applicants that have met the admissions criteria, everyone on the list "deserves" the place

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    Then the criteria is bad. They should be able to distinguish aptitude. And I find the idea 'poor kids make better students' pretty disgusting and offensive. Kids should not be measured by their parents.

  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    Then the criteria is bad. They should be able to distinguish aptitude. And I find the idea 'poor kids make better students' pretty disgusting and offensive. Kids should not be measured by their parents.

    Universities have a limited capacity to directly measure aptitude in applicants beyond looking at formal exam results, which aren't especially fine grained.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Then the criteria is bad. They should be able to distinguish aptitude. And I find the idea 'poor kids make better students' pretty disgusting and offensive. Kids should not be measured by their parents.

    That's the outcome though, not the starting assumption

    It's a way of dealing with the fact that exam success at school poorly correlates with success in tertiary education

    It correlates better if you weight the grades achieved against the typical performance of that individual's cohort (which correlates with SIMD)

    If it makes you feel better, you can think of it as the university preferring to take students who performed well and outperformed their cohort, as opposed to students who performed well and were average for their cohort

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    My local university's medical program had its pick of students who had 5 'A's at A Level but still couldn't get in. At some point there's a capacity problem.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Yeah, Edinburgh is a lot like that

    If you want to study Scots or European law, you almost certainly will apply to Edinburgh as one of your UCAS options

    It's a big uni but obviously at that point something has to give

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    OK, so I can't see the article so I'm just commenting on what is presented here.
    But when I went to University, there were maths and English tests, coupled with 3 rounds of interview. And then I got lucky.
    But university places shouldn't be decided by just predicted grades. And if the university can't individually determine aptitude then that's the uni failing.
    Because it's unlikely all say 1000 applicants were equal. And the probability those 100 were the 100 best is astronomical.
    And if we're just awarding based on background, then yep that's monstrous.
    Deprived students should be helped. But making it only deprived students is bad policy.

  • Options
    CaptainBeyondCaptainBeyond I've been out walking Registered User regular
    Gosh, a meritocracy! Why has no one else thought of this?!

Sign In or Register to comment.