Culture Wars

[JOK]

I’m struggling to see anything positive from the last decade to be supportive about.

Conveniently ignoring my observations regarding the last budget I see.

[Borin' Baggie]

---

---

Also the fact is this situation was foisted upon the government when it comes to financial support it isn’t their default position and stop being so deliberately obtuse to pretend otherwise. 

Just in the interest of balance / accuracy and your statement. Her are some measures this Tory government put in their last budget. (sadly, now mostly defunct due to some obscure reason):

Parents who lose a child will receive two weeks' paid bereavement leave.
Living Wage up by an average of 5.8%. (4 times rate of inflation. Wages rose by 2.9% 2018/19)
Everyone permanently injured in NI trouble will receive compensation / pensions for life.
Statutory sick pay to start on day one during Civid19 virus (If required) {it was}
Abolishing VAT on sanitary products. (Couldn’t be done in E.U.)
Abolishing V.A.T on books and academic journals.
Rise in threshold before NI is paid. Meaning 500,000 will not pay. Others will save £85 per year.
Pensions raised. Triple lock kept for this government period. (Remember the usual suspect on here saying it would be done away with)
Neonatal pay for parents of premature babies.

All these measures are counter to what you, Dekka, and one or two others, on here, in your usual scare mongering way, prophesied would happen within days of a new Conservative government taking over.
So do stop being deliberately obtuse and imagining we had all forgotten.

The NI thing is a terrible idea as it means hundreds of thousands of people won't be eligible for things like the state pension which require a period of time that NI is paid in and the law hasn't been updated to account for this.

We could remove VAT from sanitary products as we did so under EU legislation as an EU member, the Conservatives voted down doing so in 2015. It's purely marketing.

As for the triple lock, maintaining that is stupid especially given that the state pension has increased more since that came in that wages.

[JOK]

---

Also the fact is this situation was foisted upon the government when it comes to financial support it isn’t their default position and stop being so deliberately obtuse to pretend otherwise. 

Just in the interest of balance / accuracy and your statement. Her are some measures this Tory government put in their last budget. (sadly, now mostly defunct due to some obscure reason):

Parents who lose a child will receive two weeks' paid bereavement leave.
Living Wage up by an average of 5.8%. (4 times rate of inflation. Wages rose by 2.9% 2018/19)
Everyone permanently injured in NI trouble will receive compensation / pensions for life.
Statutory sick pay to start on day one during Civid19 virus (If required) {it was}
Abolishing VAT on sanitary products. (Couldn’t be done in E.U.)
Abolishing V.A.T on books and academic journals.
Rise in threshold before NI is paid. Meaning 500,000 will not pay. Others will save £85 per year.
Pensions raised. Triple lock kept for this government period. (Remember the usual suspect on here saying it would be done away with)
Neonatal pay for parents of premature babies.

All these measures are counter to what you, Dekka, and one or two others, on here, in your usual scare mongering way, prophesied would happen within days of a new Conservative government taking over.
So do stop being deliberately obtuse and imagining we had all forgotten.

The NI thing is a terrible idea as it means hundreds of thousands of people won't be eligible for things like the state pension which require a period of time that NI is paid in and the law hasn't been updated to account for this.

We could remove VAT from sanitary products as we did so under EU legislation as an EU member, the Conservatives voted down doing so in 2015. It's purely marketing.

As for the triple lock, maintaining that is stupid especially given that the state pension has increased more since that came in that wages.

No we couldn’t
“As a member of the EU, the UK cannot unilaterally zero-rate any item from VAT without each of the 28 other country members of the EU, AND the European Commission, giving its approval. The lowest the VAT rate can be set without this approval is 5%”
 Labour reduced it to 5% but could go no lower because of EU regulations! Otherwise why didn't they remove it completely? The thing voted down in 2015 was an amendment bill to 'Negotiate' with the EU to TRY and get a zero rate. It was not a vote against a zero rate.

You need 10 years only of contributions to get any state pension. You’ll need 35 qualifying years to get the new full State Pension if you do not have a National Insurance record before 6 April 2016. You will have had nearly 50 working years to attain the qualifying years.
You might not pay National Insurance contributions because you’re earning less than £183 a week. You may still get a qualifying year if you earn between £120 to £180 per week.
 
If Pensions have increased more than wages (if that’s what you meant) Since the triple lock came in, why is it “stupid”?

In any case, non of theses points back up the statement "when it comes to financial support it isn’t their default position". 

[Borin' Baggie]

Thanks for showing that we could remove the VAT but we decided not to. Not sure why you seem to think that this proves your point, there are clearly mechanisms available to remove VAT on specific goods and there's nothing to indicate that the EU would have blocked it much the same as they didn't block any of our other zero-rated items. If we had gone through with that amendment in 2015 we would have removed the VAT by now, it is purely marketing to say that the EU would have prevented us from doing so. The whole point of the VAT legislation is to prevent member states from acting in bad faith over things like alcohol or cigarettes, not tampons and sanitary pads. Conflating the two as an argument that the EU would have blocked us from doing so is really disingenuous. As for Labour, they didn't ask and if you don't ask you don't get. Ireland asked and they got it so there's clearly precedent. We asked with biscuits and got it.

You haven't addressed the issue over the qualifying period, the cuts pose a significant risk to those at the bottom being eligible for a state pension when those are the people who the state pension was introduced to help in the first place. You'd have a better impact by keeping the NI thresholds as they were but reintroduce tax credits as they were to provide the same effective tax cuts. It's a short sighted policy.

It is what I meant, I put that instead of than by mistake. Please don't tell me you don't see the issue with the state pension rising at a greater rate compared with wages? Not only is that unfair but it is unsustainable, a double lock to peg the rate at inflation or wage increases is more than fair especially given the aging population.

[JOK]

Don’t see how I’ve proved you correct.
From the House Commons Library report.
“ ...in the past EU-wide rules on VAT rates have been an obstacle to doing this. Although the current EU agreement on VAT rates allows Member States, should they choose, to charge a reduced rate of VAT – between 5% and 15% – on certain specified supplies, including sanitary protection, the introduction of a new zero rate would contravene these rules.” (Again, the UK could not unilaterally zero-rate any item from VAT without all of the 28 other members of the EU, and the European Commission, giving its approval.)
“In October 2015 the Government confirmed it would seek a change in EU law to allow sanitary protection to be zero-rated, as part of a forthcoming review of EU VAT by the European Commission.”
“...the Commission proposed to reverse the current approach”
“In addition to a standard VAT rate of minimum 15%, Member States would now be able to put in place:

• • two separate reduced rates of between 5% and the standard rate chosen by the Member State;
    
  • one exemption from VAT (or ‘zero rate’)
    
  • one reduced rate set at between 0% and the reduced rates.
    

To safeguard public revenues, Member States will also have to ensure that the weighted average VAT rate is at least 12%. (So, to lower some good’s rates or remove VAT altogether, Standard rate would probably have to rise)
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/res...s/sn01128/
 
I take it you object to people living below the poverty line?
A household living on or below £17,640 is living in poverty. According to the way it is calculated (below 60% of avg household income.)
A pensioner receives £9100 pa. (2020/21] I think pensioners have a long way to go before they are out of poverty! So, you consider it “fair” that they stay in poverty.

[baggy1]

Erm... https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.indep...html%3famp

[Borin' Baggie]

Don’t see how I’ve proved you correct.
From the House Commons Library report.
“ ...in the past EU-wide rules on VAT rates have been an obstacle to doing this. Although the current EU agreement on VAT rates allows Member States, should they choose, to charge a reduced rate of VAT – between 5% and 15% – on certain specified supplies, including sanitary protection, the introduction of a new zero rate would contravene these rules.” (Again, the UK could not unilaterally zero-rate any item from VAT without all of the 28 other members of the EU, and the European Commission, giving its approval.)
“In October 2015 the Government confirmed it would seek a change in EU law to allow sanitary protection to be zero-rated, as part of a forthcoming review of EU VAT by the European Commission.”
“...the Commission proposed to reverse the current approach”
“In addition to a standard VAT rate of minimum 15%, Member States would now be able to put in place:

• • two separate reduced rates of between 5% and the standard rate chosen by the Member State;
    
  • one exemption from VAT (or ‘zero rate’)
    
  • one reduced rate set at between 0% and the reduced rates.
    

To safeguard public revenues, Member States will also have to ensure that the weighted average VAT rate is at least 12%. (So, to lower some good’s rates or remove VAT altogether, Standard rate would probably have to rise)
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/res...s/sn01128/
 
I take it you object to people living below the poverty line?
A household living on or below £17,640 is living in poverty. According to the way it is calculated (below 60% of avg household income.)
A pensioner receives £9100 pa. (2020/21] I think pensioners have a long way to go before they are out of poverty! So, you consider it “fair” that they stay in poverty.

You've proved me correct by applying the condition that it be unilateral. I wasn't arguing that, the reason that it isn't unilateral is to prevent the aforementioned abuse on VAT rates for certain goods such as alcohol and cigarettes. The fact of the matter is we could have zero-rated sanitary products as an EU member but decided not to.


As has been shown by Ireland having zero-rated sanitary products, if you ask for it you shall receive it. The issue is that it was never asked for and Cameron in 2015 blamed the EU before cycling back on that in the run up to the 2016 referendum because it was, pardon my French, bollocks to blame the EU for it. The EU aren't going to block it because there is little risk of a black market on sanitary products forming from areas that have lower rates of tax on them, hence you don't see the UK market flushed with Irish tampons.

Tampons could be included within the zero-rate category as with childrens clothes, fruit and vegetables, tea, biscuits and vanilla extract but because of a domestic decision they weren't. Now they are purely for marketing purposes.

As for pensioners, they can have little income but they have a lot of wealth which more than makes up to it to the point where current pensioners hold a disproportionate amount relative to previous generations. They are also in a position to extract value from said wealth which they do. It's simply ridiculous that the state pension is able to increase by a greater amount than both wage growth and inflation. That's not to mention the fact that because of a declining birth rate the only way to sustain this is to maintain high levels of immigration otherwise the maths doesn't add up in terms of tax revenues. How are you going to square the circle that pensioners are poor while they simultaneously have the wealth? The triple lock needs to be replaced by a double lock otherwise pensioners are going to be too much of a burden on the welfare state to the point where not very nice questions will need to be asked with not very nice answers.

I'm also not going to dignify the "poverty" crap with a response. It's a horrible misuse of the purpose of relative poverty, straight from the tactics book of the far left fringes of the Labour party.

[JOK]

B1; erm... you obvs didn’t read the report I referenced. I’ll repeat a section for you.
Note in you piece, dated March 2016, Cameron said “the European Commission "will publish a proposal in the next few days to allow countries to extend the number of zero rates for VAT". But...
“In October 2015 the Government confirmed it would seek a change in EU law to allow sanitary protection to be zero-rated, as part of a forthcoming review of EU VAT by the European Commission.[4]  In April 2016 the Commission published its ‘VAT Action Plan’, including plans to update these rules on VAT rates,[5] and the Government included provision in the Finance Act 2016 to allow for sanitary protection to be zero-rated, once the UK had discretion to do this.[6]  At the time it was anticipated that a zero rate could be in place by 1 April 2017.[7] However the European Commission’s detailed proposals to overhaul the EU rules on VAT rates were not published until January 2018;”
 
BB; I have addressed the qualifying period. If you do not earn enough to pay NI. you still get a qualifying year. It’s a minimum of 10 years to get some pension and up to 35 years to get the full pension and you have a 50 year working life to obtain them. Even if you are unemployed. you can claim either Class 1 or Class 3 NI credits.
 
2 million pensioners are living in poverty. 16% and growing again. (How it is measured is irrelevant to this argument)
35 per cent pensioners who are private tenants and 29 per cent of social rented sector tenants, live in poverty compared to 13 per cent of older people who
own their home outright. They are not able to realise value from assets they don’t have. Nearly a quarter (24%) of pensioners have no savings.
 
You’re quite happy to abandon them. Would you be content to ignore even 16% of children in poverty.
Not all pensioners are mini Rothschilds!
 
Still, this is all by the by. Your points do not affirm the statement “when it comes to financial support it isn’t their default position.” Which, the argument against, was the thrust of  my original post.
Strangely, still awaiting Dekka’s response.
 

[Derek Hardballs]

Don’t see how I’ve proved you correct.
From the House Commons Library report.
“ ...in the past EU-wide rules on VAT rates have been an obstacle to doing this. Although the current EU agreement on VAT rates allows Member States, should they choose, to charge a reduced rate of VAT – between 5% and 15% – on certain specified supplies, including sanitary protection, the introduction of a new zero rate would contravene these rules.” (Again, the UK could not unilaterally zero-rate any item from VAT without all of the 28 other members of the EU, and the European Commission, giving its approval.)
“In October 2015 the Government confirmed it would seek a change in EU law to allow sanitary protection to be zero-rated, as part of a forthcoming review of EU VAT by the European Commission.”
“...the Commission proposed to reverse the current approach”
“In addition to a standard VAT rate of minimum 15%, Member States would now be able to put in place:

• • two separate reduced rates of between 5% and the standard rate chosen by the Member State;
    
  • one exemption from VAT (or ‘zero rate’)
    
  • one reduced rate set at between 0% and the reduced rates.
    

To safeguard public revenues, Member States will also have to ensure that the weighted average VAT rate is at least 12%. (So, to lower some good’s rates or remove VAT altogether, Standard rate would probably have to rise)
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/res...s/sn01128/
 
I take it you object to people living below the poverty line?
A household living on or below £17,640 is living in poverty. According to the way it is calculated (below 60% of avg household income.)
A pensioner receives £9100 pa. (2020/21] I think pensioners have a long way to go before they are out of poverty! So, you consider it “fair” that they stay in poverty.

You've proved me correct by applying the condition that it be unilateral. I wasn't arguing that, the reason that it isn't unilateral is to prevent the aforementioned abuse on VAT rates for certain goods such as alcohol and cigarettes. The fact of the matter is we could have zero-rated sanitary products as an EU member but decided not to.


As has been shown by Ireland having zero-rated sanitary products, if you ask for it you shall receive it. The issue is that it was never asked for and Cameron in 2015 blamed the EU before cycling back on that in the run up to the 2016 referendum because it was, pardon my French, bollocks to blame the EU for it. The EU aren't going to block it because there is little risk of a black market on sanitary products forming from areas that have lower rates of tax on them, hence you don't see the UK market flushed with Irish tampons.

Tampons could be included within the zero-rate category as with childrens clothes, fruit and vegetables, tea, biscuits and vanilla extract but because of a domestic decision they weren't. Now they are purely for marketing purposes.

As for pensioners, they can have little income but they have a lot of wealth which more than makes up to it to the point where current pensioners hold a disproportionate amount relative to previous generations. They are also in a position to extract value from said wealth which they do. It's simply ridiculous that the state pension is able to increase by a greater amount than both wage growth and inflation. That's not to mention the fact that because of a declining birth rate the only way to sustain this is to maintain high levels of immigration otherwise the maths doesn't add up in terms of tax revenues. How are you going to square the circle that pensioners are poor while they simultaneously have the wealth? The triple lock needs to be replaced by a double lock otherwise pensioners are going to be too much of a burden on the welfare state to the point where not very nice questions will need to be asked with not very nice answers.

I'm also not going to dignify the "poverty" crap with a response. It's a horrible misuse of the purpose of relative poverty, straight from the tactics book of the far left fringes of the Labour party.

B1; erm... you obvs didn’t read the report I referenced. I’ll repeat a section for you.
Note in you piece, dated March 2016, Cameron said “the European Commission "will publish a proposal in the next few days to allow countries to extend the number of zero rates for VAT". But...
“In October 2015 the Government confirmed it would seek a change in EU law to allow sanitary protection to be zero-rated, as part of a forthcoming review of EU VAT by the European Commission.[4]  In April 2016 the Commission published its ‘VAT Action Plan’, including plans to update these rules on VAT rates,[5] and the Government included provision in the Finance Act 2016 to allow for sanitary protection to be zero-rated, once the UK had discretion to do this.[6]  At the time it was anticipated that a zero rate could be in place by 1 April 2017.[7] However the European Commission’s detailed proposals to overhaul the EU rules on VAT rates were not published until January 2018;”
 
BB; I have addressed the qualifying period. If you do not earn enough to pay NI. you still get a qualifying year. It’s a minimum of 10 years to get some pension and up to 35 years to get the full pension and you have a 50 year working life to obtain them. Even if you are unemployed. you can claim either Class 1 or Class 3 NI credits.
 
2 million pensioners are living in poverty. 16% and growing again. (How it is measured is irrelevant to this argument)
35 per cent pensioners who are private tenants and 29 per cent of social rented sector tenants, live in poverty compared to 13 per cent of older people who
own their home outright. They are not able to realise value from assets they don’t have. Nearly a quarter (24%) of pensioners have no savings.
 
You’re quite happy to abandon them. Would you be content to ignore even 16% of children in poverty.
Not all pensioners are mini Rothschilds!
 
Still, this is all by the by. Your points do not affirm the statement “when it comes to financial support it isn’t their default position.” Which, the argument against, was the thrust of  my original post.
Strangely, still awaiting Dekka’s response.
 

I’m working as I have been throughout the situation we find ourselves in and I didn’t know you had replied as my reply moved to the next page when I dip on here each day as respite from work. If you recall I did praise the last budget. However a decade of austerity has become the default position of the Conservatives, they may argue that this was necessary, some may argue it was due to wanting to roll back the state. We await what direction we shall go now after Covid and Brexit.

---

What would you do differently to protect lives, business’s and jobs?

That's very simple. Helicopter Money. IIRC even Heath agreed with me about that.

Corporate welfare is the road to Hell that we've been on since 2008.

I'm not sure my employees and assciates would be happy with me going to Tesco to subsidise my income either.

Well you can all from home then 

[Protheroe]

What would you do differently to protect lives, business’s and jobs?

That's very simple. Helicopter Money. IIRC even Heath agreed with me about that.

Corporate welfare is the road to Hell that we've been on since 2008.

I'm not sure my employees and assciates would be happy with me going to Tesco to subsidise my income either.