I seem to remember it was the common regs affecting the investment industry that were one of Jambas main reasons for his dislike of the EU. Plus the fear of upcoming regulations concerning tax evasion coming from the EU might be part of the hidden agenda behind the right wing push for Brexit. Maybe?

40% pay none

Are you sure you aren’t confusing “tax” with “income tax”.?

2/3 is a majority and able to push tax policy onto others.
A well funded NHS is cheaper for people who earn more as they can save on their private HC, nice to come back to a system where I don’t have to pay to see a GP or £50-60 for some prescription medicine.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-australia-us
and what’s that the UK is fairly low tax anyway?
anyway there was a vote about tax rates once, no way anyone can change them now
Respect Democracy

Those who pay no income tax pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than than high rate income tax payers. Becuase they pay tax on just about everything they spend. And before you say food isn’t taxed I suggest working out the percentage of tax in the cost of production, distribution and retailing of say a bag of potatoes.

An equitable tax system is based on abiltiy to pay which is where most systems and especially the British system fails.

Without a fair tax system to distribute wealth the rich will get richer and the poor poorer until the poor have nothing. Check the proportiona of wealth owned by the richest 1% and 5% in any country and you’ll find this to be the case. The system robs the poor and allows the rich to accumulate wealth.

on a more festive note:

[url=https://flic.kr/p/22rWA4d]DQ94BvBXUAAxLJ_[/url] by jamesanderson2010, on Flickr

HH correct -probably in both counts (but good to pop t out slightly sloppy language)

Unsurprisingly Ed, you are wrong about the UK failing, we have a highly progressive tax and welfare system which addresses the pretax inequalities plus income inequality has been falling in UK. So double fail. But apart from that….as you were

plus income inequality has been falling in UK.

Selective use of stats to distort no doubt but as you never link a source we’ll never know.

From 1918 to 1979 the share of income going to the richest 1% declined. Since 1979 it’s risen. I don’t doubt there were (or even have been) short periods of counter-trend movement but the trend since 1979 is the rich getting relatively richer.

The Tories on this thread read like the “Tory Jesus cartoon” parodies. Google that if you want examples.

Incone inequality has fallen since the GFC – official stats show this.

Your LT trends are correct but not unique to UK and do not support your argument

The UK does not fail. We have a highly progressive tax and welfare systems that works very well.

Inconvenient facts and all that.

Do The Tories remoaners on this thread read at all like the “Tory Jesus cartoon” parodies. Google that if you want examples. ? 😉

Scotland is a lot better on public services, education in particular.

Seriously?

Incone inequality has fallen since the GFC – official stats show this.

So, as you’re the one making the assertion, post the effing source. It’s not hard, I mean you must have read it.

That’s the official line you are meant to believe

Certain folk get a wee bit sensitive when you look at the actual facts – education a top priority too!!!

That’s the official line you are meant to believe

Given that you couldn’t lie straight in bed, I’ll pass, thanks.

And as for:

education a top priority too!!!

What are your qualifications?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/10/uk-inequality-working-people-pensions-ons

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-40644850

Mixed picture I suggest.

GFC

Georgia Fried Chicken?

Global financial crisis 😉

I’d discounted that as far too obvious. 😉

Good Friday Crisis?

The UK does not fail.

Well that depends on how you define fail. You are an economist after all, not a humanitarian.

1,000 more homeless people this year. Is that not a failure?
NHS struggling, is that not a failure?
Poverty rates rising after having fallen – is that not a failure?

It does mol.

Very odd distinction that you make there but I will let you off

Edukator who is going to pay your pension with 25% youth unemployment ?

@molgrips despite all France’s taxes Govt asked that all non emergency surgery was postponed last winter, sound familiar. Also the Tory “dementia tax” is exactly how care of the elderly works in France where they even means test the children if the parents can’t pay. Humanitarianism has to be paid for, ie economics.

So the amendment was passed basically as Dennis Skinner and 1 other long standing Labour eurosceptic voted with Corbyn.

Looks certain the EU will agree sufiicient progress even though the UK has pointed out it has legally agreed just about nothing. As Kate Hoey said on TV the UK has put then in a spot and they’ve folded. Sufficient progress never really meant anything did it ?

We did the French youth unemployment stuff previously – possibly during your sabbatical. It’s a great fact Jamba but not a meaningful one. Good only for people who enjoy abusing statistics.

We did the French youth unemployment stuff previously

You keep saying this but when looked at as a percentage of the whole, UK tertiary education were much the same as everywhere else so your theory doesn’t appear to hold water.

That’s because you neglected the age issue.

Keep up.

And if your premise is correct the two measures should be the same. They’re not.

Maybe produce some numbers – don’t think age issue is particularly significant when you look at nature of tertiary education.

The total length of time in primary, secondary and tertiary is.

Also you saw the numbers on unemployment as a proportion of total population in the age group (if you followed the links at the time) and the same ratio but excluding those in education.
The first ratio gave very similar numbers in the UK and in France while the second didn’t.
Now while I admit I am going from that to the assumption that numbers in education is difference – but that’s a pretty reasonable step.
You say that I must be wrong because tertiary numbers are similar.
Unfortunately your premise falls down partly because it doesn’t explain the difference in the measures, but also because it looks at numbers in tertiary education, not when the average individual leaves education, which is affected by whether they went to tertiary education but also when they finished secondary education and how long they spend in tertiary.
So I have a theory which meets the known facts and my own experience and you have one that doesn’t.

Discuss.

It should be noted at this point that arguing with an engineer about definite data is like wrestling a pig in shit, after a period of time you come to realise that the pig enjoys it.

Rumbled

Clear messages from EU today

1. We are backing TM

2. Don’t think that we will negotiate another deal if you don’t like this one

So the silly folk know what’s what now. Time to stop screwing around with their stupid games

Equally they’ve also said it’s ok to call it off.

Equally they’ve also said it’s ok to call it off.

It is getting messy, parlement can technically throw out a no deal or a bad deal scenario, but would we then be relient on a unanimous agreement from the eu27 to revoke a 50?

article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

It’s ambiguous as we are only at stage 2, ‘notification of intention’.

The withdrawal agreement mentioned in stage 3 has not been agreed yet.

So I’d read that as notification of intent is not legally bound to leave before withdrawal agreement has been ratified.

Intent is not a promise, a bit like ‘let’s give the NHS 350 million.’ is not technically a promise.

Are you talking about Kelly’s comments?

If so, interesting to see who thinks they has as much to lose (if note more)

Messy?!??

It’s clearer.

We are leaving. Silly games will not lead to a second vote on membership. Time to focus on the job at hand (finally)

It’s clearer

For the hard of thinking maybe, have you read article 50?

Most informed opinion agrees that we can unilaterally revoke A50 which remains the most likely outcome IMO.

I said weeks ago that the Hard Brexit option was long gone and the vote yesterday proved that, TM is probably very relieved that the final ” deal” will not sit with her.

The Tories are a spent force – Boris, Mogg, DD, Fox, Redwood have painted them selves into a corner and the likes of Bernard Jenkins simply become more confused as the days go by. They are all grey old women/men with an electorate dying out faster than they can recruit – in fact they are “Brexshit” in the form of a political party.

It matters not what type of deal they get, it will p*** off all sides and they will be on the receiving end of a “protest” vote – Labour will win and borrow shed loads of cash to keep poor people breathing and kick the implications into the long grass.

There is no question that the working poor will suffer (they already are i mean have you seen the price of Diesel and butter) and they will suffer for a long time. I have made this point before but its worth remembering since the late 1970s we have dad more than 15 years of recession in total,add another 10 then half my working life has been in recession/crap. You can not build an economy if half the time its going backwards.

I know we are not in a recession currently but we have been wrestling with this situation since 2008 if it takes till 2028 to sort this then that is a long time to be running to standstill.

For the hard of thinking maybe, have you read article 50?

Hmmmm, let me think.

Clear messages from EU today

1. We are backing TM

2. Don’t think that we will negotiate another deal if you don’t like this one

So the silly folk know what’s what now. Time to stop screwing around with their stupid games

1: We are backing TM because **** knows who you bastards will put in as PM if she goes down, but chances are she will be a lot less agreeable to negotiate with.

2: We haven’t got time to mess around with Boris.

Some weird bloke with a beard??

Has BoJo grown a beard now?