Harris V Trump - The US Election - The Results

[colin]

The Employment Rights Bill :-

"not fit for purpose"

"The direct impact on business estimate does not account for the likelihood employers may offset the costs of regulation and mandated benefits through wage adjustments, benefit reductions or other compensatory mechanisms which would eventually be borne by the employee. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted, based on empirical evidence on the impacts of previous reforms of this kind, that it generally expects much, and potentially close to all, of the cost to be passed through to lower wages.2 There may also be negative impacts on recruitment, including from employers potentially adopting labour-saving technological measures such as AI systems and self-service check outs. "

from :-

www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-rights-bill-rpc-opinion-red-rated



“With significant price pressures on the horizon, November’s figures may signal the end of falling inflation. The industry faces £7 billion of additional costs next year because of changes to employers’ national insurance contributions, business rates, an increase to the minimum wage and a new packaging levy.”


Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium.




“What really defines growth is the decisions made in boardrooms up and down the country,It’s chief financial officers asking, ‘Can we afford to invest? Can we afford to expand? Can we afford to take a chance on new people?’ Well, after the budget, the answer we’re hearing from so many firms is still ‘not yet’."

Rain Newton-Smith, Director-General of the CBI.

[lefthanging]

Nov 26, 2024 7:57:13 GMT hireton said:

Nov 25, 2024 23:03:24 GMT lefthanging said:

1. "But this proposed legislation is quite different. It seeks to give a person of sound will and mind the right to act in a way that is clearly contrary to a fundamental truth: our life is not our own possession, to dispose of as we feel fit."

2. He also says suffering is good for you:

"The suffering of a human being is not meaningless. It does not destroy that dignity. It is an intrinsic part of our human journey, a journey embraced by the Eternal Word of God, Christ Jesus himself. He brings our humanity to its full glory precisely through the gateway of suffering and death."

On the first point, I don't see any contradiction. The underlying rationale for the belief is ultimately a form of virtue ethics (i.e. grounded in the nature of the human person). Obviously the Archbishop isn't going to rehearse all that in his letter, but that doesn't mean that's not the ultimate basis of the beliefs - just as an SNP politician might instruct their followers to vote 'yes' in an independence referendum because 'it's the destiny of the Scottish people'. It doesn't mean that's the only reason.

Not that I'd necessarily have an issue with people appealing to God anyway, given most religious people are persuaded by rational arguments which seek to establish God's existence - if those arguments are successful, then obviously God's existence is going to be a factor to consider when discussing ethical matters. Of course we are all free to disagree with those arguments, but if one thinks that religious people have no reasons for belief in God beyond blind faith or tradition or the Bible, then I'm afraid such a person would be grossly ignorant of the religious intellectual traditions that gave birth to modern ethics and the scientific method - or else suffering from a case of pure prejudice.

Thankfully this kind of ignorance seems to be mostly restricted to the older generation (see www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58681075) who in my experience tend to think that religion is the same thing as whatever nonsense they were taught at primary school. 

On the second point, all this says is that suffering is not meaningless. It doesn't say suffering is caused by God or in any sense a 'good'. To so would actually be totally contrary to the Catholic faith.

[Danny]

Nov 26, 2024 10:15:01 GMT wb61 said:

I am not writing from a basis of medical knowledge but from experience of a relative's passing through lung cancer at a hospice. Morphine is a poison in sufficient dosage, the efficacy of morphine reduces as the level of pain increases so that there is a need for the dose to increase to combat this. My assumption, from observation, was that there must come a point when the dosage has reached the poisonous level but is no longer efficacious against the pain. The question I asked myself (but didn't dare ask the clinicians) was whether it was more important to maintain pain relief or not.  I believe I avoided asking the question or coming to a conclusion as either outcome was too awful to contemplate, all I know is at the end my relative slipped into unconsciousness and then passed and appeared free of pain. 

I have never found it difficult to come to an opinion on any subject of political debate, but this question of assisted dying has me completely flummoxed and vacillating in either direction. The only thing I am certain of is that palliative care needs to be improved immensely so that all providers can be brought up to the standards of the best.

Palliative care cannot be improved. Its by definition what we do when all else has failed. What really happens seems to depend on your own circumstances But its absolutely correct conceptually we poison the patient as much as necessary to make the pain tolerable (which might mean they are unconscious or stop breathing, usually does). But an important part is also withdrawing food and water, so they die from that. You dont last long without water.

[colin]

"If the government wishes to promote certain uses of land – such as producing food, planting trees or encouraging biodiversity – it would be fairer and more efficient to explicitly target support towards the activities it seeks to promote. This would support any farm or business carrying out the desired activity, not only those that are passed on in estates (and not those used for other things), and would not leave open a channel for inheritance tax avoidance. Likewise, if the government wishes to redistribute to certain groups in society, it should do so directly: inheritance tax relief is not a well-targeted tool for doing these things. The government should clearly set out whether it has such aims and its view on the type and level of support required to achieve them."



"If the government wished to give current farm owners the same opportunity to avoid inheritance tax as owners of other assets, it could, for example, make lifetime gifts of agricultural property made before a certain future date inheritance tax free, regardless of the timing of the death.
Whether or not the government wishes to make that tweak to the policy, there is certainly a good case for making unused portions of the £1 million allowance inheritable by a spouse or civil partner, like the other main inheritance tax allowances are."


From :-
Inheritance Tax and Farms
IFS

ifs.org.uk/articles/inheritance-tax-and-farms-0

[Danny]

Nov 26, 2024 10:29:03 GMT neilj said:

If you volunteer for a School, you have to undergo a background check.

But, if you apply to be Director of National Intelligence, you don't?

Well, thats democracy. All you need is the votes to attain absolute power.

[lefthanging]

Nov 26, 2024 9:38:47 GMT neilj said:

lefthanging
"The argument that we should all 'be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else' fails to address the fact that a) most ethicists and people who have thought about morality seriously hold that we have moral duties to ourselves, not just others; and b) no man is an island - what we do to ourselves inevitably affects others (suicide actually being the most obvious and extreme case of this)"

Surely there are competing morals?
Is it morally right to force someone to live on in pain for the greater good of the wider society for example
Indeed is the wider society not harmed by forcing people to live on in pain

It's certainly not a black and white issue and neither side has absolute moral authority on it's side

I agree it's not black and white if all you mean is that that it's a difficult, murky issue which is hard to make sense of.

But I'm not a moral relativist and I don't think ethical beliefs are just subjective - I think there's a real truth to the matter, one way or another (otherwise why are people arguing about it?) - even if we can't quite make out what it is yet.

So if the ultimate truth of the matter is that, yes, the individual's right to die outweighs any apparent duties to the self or society, then indeed it is a black and white moral fact that assisted dying should be allowed - and equally, if it turns out that those duties actually take precedent over the feelings of individual, then it's a black and white moral truth that assisted dying shouldn't be! Either way there is such a thing as an absolute 'right answer' - if there's not, why do some hold such disdain for those who come up with a different answer to them?

[alec]

Topical -

/photo/1

[colin]

Apparently Limited Liability Partnerships ( LLPs) are treated as Self Employment for the purposes of the Budget E'er's NIC increase and therefore escape it.

This structure is favoured by many of the countries leading Law firms. Partners in these firms have very large paypackets.
The Law Gazette had speculated before the budget that such an increase, if levied on these partnerships might cost/raise £4bn from the small group of the largest firms.

from Times report

[alec]

colin - "If the answer to this question is none , then the desire for assisted suicide is being brought about by inadequate palliative care."

It really isn't Colin. This is where you are going wrong. It's been hijacked by opponents who fixate on palliative end of life care, but that's a side show for many of us. And besides, as neilj has pointed out, no matter how much you resource it, there are some conditions where modern medicine cannot relieve the pain anyway. Properly funding palliative care *will not* end the assisted dying debate. We're over medicalising an ethical debate over choice and freedoms.

It's about personal choice over the lives we each wish to live. In my case, being able to access and enjoy the outdoors through physical activity is essential to my well being. I don't give a flying f@ck about the level of pain I may or may not be experiencing, but if I reach the stage when I can no longer walk or enjoy a reasonably active life, then I will be looking at my options to end my life, in discussion with my partner. I won't be tolerating a life where I have an indeterminate lifespan but limited physical ability, even if I am completely pain free. For me - and this is an entirely personal choice - that offers no quality of life.

The one element that counteracts that is my partner. I've been with her for four decades, and hope to have a couple more if things go well. We still plan on climbing Scottish mountains into our 80s, if my knees hold out, but there are lots of other activities we can enjoy together if we can't do the more strenuous activities. (No sniggering at the back please). If she wants me to carry on, then I'll listen to her and we'll discuss together, because what I do with my life deeply affects her. Likewise, if she died tomorrow, I would find it very hard to justify continuing alone, such are our feelings for each other.

My choice to die may never come, if I'm lucky, but it may come from restrictions to my capabilities or from not wanting to carry on after the loss of my life partner. Physical pain may not play any part in the question. I will, if I so wish, exercise my rights over my own body, but I just hope by the time such a choice arises, I'll be living in a more advanced society that doesn't impose a gross restriction of freedom on individuals.

[steve]

shevii

One of the U.S. biggest imports from Mexico and to a lesser extent Canada is agricultural products i.e. food

In an effort to offset this  and reduce the inevitability of higher prices caused by taxing imports the U.S. could try to expand its own farming industry, in order to do this you need more agricultural workers.

Guess who the imbecile in chief wants to deport!

youtu.be/VKx4jfXbVPY?si=uCuZzf-baPpdJyBv

[lens]

Nov 26, 2024 9:36:52 GMT barbara said:

Nov 26, 2024 0:08:02 GMT lens said:

colin - absolutely true, but also why heat pumps combined with battery storage and solar are such a good combination. Specced right, it can mean a kWh cost roughly the same (even lower) than for gas, and for the electricity used by the heat pump you also get the multiplier effect where a kWh of electricity gives the same heating as 3-4kWh of gas.

Yes I forgot the multiplier. For every kilowat of energy it takes a boiler to produce heat I kilowatt of heat is generated. For an ASHP every 1 kilowatt of energy in creates 3 kilowats of heat out. Tremendously efficient.

barbara - arguably the story gets even better, as a gas boiler won't be 100% efficient in terms of all the heat generated being useful in terms of heating house/water. The very *best* you're likely to get now is 90% on a new boiler, and 80-90% is probably a more realistic figure. So the 3-400% of an ASHP should be compared to 80-90% of a gas boiler.

In terms of solar, I got my panels about 16-17 years ago, which meant I just qualified for the very high level of generation tariff. Eye watering by todays standards!   It was guaranteed for 25 years, and obviously couldn't last for new installations - the whole point was to kick start the industry when it was in its infancy. People who were able to go for 16 panels got payback in a very short space of time - I could only put 5 up, and together with the much higher prices at the time that has meant I only reached break even a year or two back.

Though at the time it was as much to gain practical and real experience at home as for sheer economics. If I wasn't still getting the (very generous!) 25 year tariff, then nowadays I'd be very seriously looking at a home storage battery. Regardless of solar, if you buy at around 7p/kWh, and each kWh offsets one you would otherwise buy at 20p+/kWh, well......... And such can totally change the economics around heat pumps.

Replacement in an existing house is one thing, but it really should be a no brainer in a new build.

[neilj]

Nov 26, 2024 11:10:25 GMT lefthanging said:

Nov 26, 2024 9:38:47 GMT neilj said:

lefthanging
"The argument that we should all 'be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else' fails to address the fact that a) most ethicists and people who have thought about morality seriously hold that we have moral duties to ourselves, not just others; and b) no man is an island - what we do to ourselves inevitably affects others (suicide actually being the most obvious and extreme case of this)"

Surely there are competing morals?
Is it morally right to force someone to live on in pain for the greater good of the wider society for example
Indeed is the wider society not harmed by forcing people to live on in pain

It's certainly not a black and white issue and neither side has absolute moral authority on it's side

I agree it's not black and white if all you mean is that that it's a difficult, murky issue which is hard to make sense of.

But I'm not a moral relativist and I don't think ethical beliefs are just subjective - I think there's a real truth to the matter, one way or another (otherwise why are people arguing about it?) - even if we can't quite make out what it is yet.

So if the ultimate truth of the matter is that, yes, the individual's right to die outweighs any apparent duties to the self or society, then indeed it is a black and white moral fact that assisted dying should be allowed - and equally, if it turns out that those duties actually take precedent over the feelings of individual, then it's a black and white moral truth that assisted dying shouldn't be! Either way there is such a thing as an absolute 'right answer' - if there's not, why do some hold such disdain for those who come up with a different answer to them?

Thank you, I can't speak for others but for me it's not an absolutist situation
I see it as a continuum, at one end you have someone physically fit and healthy with years of life ahead of them. At the other end someone with just a few months left to live, having to endure pain that medication can't relieve and with no quality of life

I don't believe the former should have the right to ask the state to assist in their death. I do think the latter should have that right

The question for me is where you draw the line of that continuum. My personal belief is that the proposed legislation doesn't go far enough. For example I think if someone is in continual pain, but has say 12 months to live, they should be assisted. Also you should be abe to make a living will, to future proof you against mental deterioration

But this Bill for me is better than the current situation

[graham]

The current 'assisted dying' debate has some resonance re- my own circumstances. I was diagnosed with severe Aortic Stenosis in Spring 2022 and also moderate Mitral Stenosis a year later. My Norfolk cardiologist decided this April that - despite being asymptomatic at present - I would benefit from cardiac surgery to change both heart valves. I reached 70 in July and do not find the prospect of open heart surgery appealing at my age. Having expressed a preference for an alternative TAVI procedure - effectively keyhole surgery via a groin insertion - which would be far less invasive, I attended Papworth Hospital last Friday where I was given a CT scan. Alas this revealed too much calcium in the Aortic valve area for the TAVI option to be viable. I now really only have the open heart option - or doing nothing.However, I was advised in September that the latter would restrict my life expectancy to 3 years. That would take me to 73 - which in some ways might be seen as a reasonable innings - but it means I now face a tough decision.

[colin]

Nov 26, 2024 11:40:21 GMT alec said:

if I reach the stage when I can no longer walk or enjoy a reasonably active life, then I will be looking at my options to end my life, in discussion with my partner. I won't be tolerating a life where I have an indeterminate lifespan but limited physical ability, even if I am completely pain free.

Then , as i understand it, this Bill won't help you.

You will need  to have a terminal illness, which is defined as an incurable, progressive disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment.Your lifespan will need to be determined as being no more than six months.


So we are talking about quite different things.

[lefthanging]

Nov 26, 2024 12:24:30 GMT neilj said:

Nov 26, 2024 11:10:25 GMT lefthanging said:

Thank you, I can't speak for others but for me it's not an absolutist situation
I see it as a continuum, at one end you have someone physically fit and healthy with years of life ahead of them. At the other end someone with just a few months left to live, having to endure pain that medication can't relieve and with no quality of life

I don't believe the former should have the right to ask the state to assist in their death. I do think the latter should have that right

The question for me is where you draw the line of that continuum.

Thanks Neil. I think it's a question of terminology - I would still consider your view to be 'absolute' in that you do think there is a real right and wrong to the matter - yes it's dependent on the circumstances, but ultimately you think that on one side of the line it's permitted and on the other it's not, i.e. there is a real objective truth to the matter.

I guess I never like the "it's not black and white" language because it's so ambiguous. Often people just mean what you do - that it's complicated and/or that the right answer will depend on the circumstances. But sometimes people use it to indicate that, in their view, there is no right answer at all, not even in principle. This is because they hold that morality is just something human beings make up to make them feel better. For such people, the question 'is X, in circumstance Y, right or wrong?' ultimately has the same status as 'should my curtains be red or blue?' - i.e. there is no objective basis for the decision at all and it's really all just a matter of taste.

But really that's just a quibble of mine. I understand and respect your meaning.

[neilj]

I think this is a little bit of a stretch from Johnson...blaming the Church for people being overweight, including one assumes his own weight issues
www.lbc.co.uk/news/theyre-all-fatsos-boris-johnson-blames-the-church-of-england-for-obesity-crisis/
'They're all fatsos': Boris Johnson blames the Church of England for obesity crisis

[neilj]

Nov 26, 2024 13:10:47 GMT neilj said:

I think this is a little bit of a stretch from Johnson...blaming the Church for people being overweight, including one assumes his own weight issues
www.lbc.co.uk/news/theyre-all-fatsos-boris-johnson-blames-the-church-of-england-for-obesity-crisis/
'They're all fatsos': Boris Johnson blames the Church of England for obesity crisis

Although thinking about this further, it does fall into a pattern of behaviour by Johnson that someone else is always at fault rather than himself

[bardin1]

Nov 26, 2024 12:24:02 GMT lens said:

Nov 26, 2024 9:36:52 GMT barbara said:

barbara - arguably the story gets even better, as a gas boiler won't be 100% efficient in terms of all the heat generated being useful in terms of heating house/water. The very *best* you're likely to get now is 90% on a new boiler, and 80-90% is probably a more realistic figure. So the 3-400% of an ASHP should be compared to 80-90% of a gas boiler.

In terms of solar, I got my panels about 16-17 years ago, which meant I just qualified for the very high level of generation tariff. Eye watering by todays standards!   It was guaranteed for 25 years, and obviously couldn't last for new installations - the whole point was to kick start the industry when it was in its infancy. People who were able to go for 16 panels got payback in a very short space of time - I could only put 5 up, and together with the much higher prices at the time that has meant I only reached break even a year or two back.

Though at the time it was as much to gain practical and real experience at home as for sheer economics. If I wasn't still getting the (very generous!) 25 year tariff, then nowadays I'd be very seriously looking at a home storage battery. Regardless of solar, if you buy at around 7p/kWh, and each kWh offsets one you would otherwise buy at 20p+/kWh, well......... And such can totally change the economics around heat pumps.

Replacement in an existing house is one thing, but it really should be a no brainer in a new build.

I forgot to mention that we have two storage batteries and we fill them at night on a low tariff so we get the cheaper energy. Economically that is far more beneficial than our array of solar panels

[turk]

It’s very difficult to understand how Starmers latest policy of reducing the benefit burden by getting people back to work by cutting there benefits if they refuse to work is going to achieve anything.

Reeves has made it almost impossible for small to medium size business to take on extra workers through her increased in national Insurance , raising the minimum wage and increased workers rights from day one of employment, plus the never ending rises in energy prices.

Just how Labour is going to increase in employment, raise productivity both necessary to achieve the stated aim of growing the economy ,by fleecing the employers ,whilst borrowing billions to pay public sector workers more money and shovelling yet more billions into the NHS without any foreseeable change of practices seems a triumph of political dogma over common sense.

All Reeves seems to have done is set the ground work for yet more austerity and a even more hugely in debt flatlined economy. With 14yrs to plan for how a future Labour government should function it’s quite surprising there so clueless.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 25, 2024 17:28:34 GMT bardin1 said:

Nov 25, 2024 11:00:31 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Is this where community schemes come in? Where as a community you might set up extra solar panels etc. and share reduced leccy costs to fund some traditional leccy heating more cheaply, or use waste heat piped from industrial processes etc.

Unfortunately wouldn't help though such schemes are great. I live in a listed building so no solar panels allowed on it though we have some ground mounted against the hill we live on- they don't produce much in winter.  The building's built on rock with little under floor space. - there are no industrial processes within about 10 miles

Ah well, my post was supposed to be addressing that, hence the community aspect of pooling resources. So if you are unable to fit a heat pump or solar panels, you can still pay into a scheme to fit solar panels elsewhere, and still benefit from reduced price of leccy to power conventional electric heating. (Maybe you have more batteries on your site instead).

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 25, 2024 16:28:01 GMT barbara said:

Nov 25, 2024 11:00:31 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Is this where community schemes come in? Where as a community you might set up extra solar panels etc. and share reduced leccy costs to fund some traditional leccy heating more cheaply, or use waste heat piped from industrial processes etc.

There is a scheme whereby those over a certain age (I htink it might be 65  but not sure) who are vulnerable or with health or other disabilites get this for free, regardless of income. 2 of my 3 neighbours qualified for this. They got a solar panels and an ASHP with needed radiators. Unfortunately (well fortunately really)  although I'm 71 I am not on any medication or oversight by my GP/hospital and have good blood pressure, cholesterol and other signifiers so I don't qualify. 

Yes that sounds like a useful scheme. And I am pleased to hear you’re still in good health, Barbara (not least because it gives me hope for the future as I age. I was still in my 40s when I first posted here, now I am in my 60s and my perspective has shifted a tad…). My community scheme idea was intended to address the situation for those unable to fit panels or heat pumps, but given bardin1 also read it the way you did, clearly I explained it poorly. I quite often explain things poorly on the first go. (Sometimes it even manages to improve on further goes…)

[steve]

The same arguments were made in 1999 with the introduction of national minimum wage.

"Reeves has made it almost impossible for small to medium size business to take on extra workers through her increased in national Insurance , raising the minimum wage and increased workers rights from day one of employment,"

It was total cobblers then as well.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 26, 2024 14:23:10 GMT steve said:

The same arguments were made in 1999 with the introduction of national minimum wage.

"Reeves has made it almost impossible for small to medium size business to take on extra workers through her increased in national Insurance , raising the minimum wage and increased workers rights from day one of employment,"

It was total cobblers then as well.

People keep saying this but it’s not the same thing though. When you pay people more wages, then that can boost business because they can buy more. This NI hike is taking money out of business to go to the government rather than to boost wages, so that people may lose wages or lose jobs.

(There is also the issue that while it may not lose jobs overall, it may hit some sectors harder)

It’s not over then, however, if that tax revenue then gets spent in the economy in a way that boosts the economy, which may offset the increased tax. If you spend it on the right things, with good multipliers, then it might have quite a powerful positive effect. 

But of course, some of this money may not be going into the economy it may be paying down debt et cetera. I’m not sure how it all balances out…

[alec]

colin - "So we are talking about quite different things."

no, not at all. I'm talking about the over medicalisation of this debate, which you have just demonstrated.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 26, 2024 6:04:29 GMT Danny said:

.

Nov 25, 2024 10:17:50 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

If leccy was cheap and plentiful enough, you wouldn’t need a heat pump for those buildings, old-fashioned leccy heating could suffice. Storage heaters etc…

Indeed, which is why nuclear is a problem, its not cheap taking into account lifetime costs.

Well I think we have long had agreement on that Danners, given typical implementations of nuclear. (More sane versions however might be rather different…)

[barbara]

Nov 26, 2024 11:40:21 GMT alec said:

colin - "If the answer to this question is none , then the desire for assisted suicide is being brought about by inadequate palliative care."

It really isn't Colin. This is where you are going wrong. It's been hijacked by opponents who fixate on palliative end of life care, but that's a side show for many of us. And besides, as neilj has pointed out, no matter how much you resource it, there are some conditions where modern medicine cannot relieve the pain anyway. Properly funding palliative care *will not* end the assisted dying debate. We're over medicalising an ethical debate over choice and freedoms.

It's about personal choice over the lives we each wish to live. In my case, being able to access and enjoy the outdoors through physical activity is essential to my well being. I don't give a flying f@ck about the level of pain I may or may not be experiencing, but if I reach the stage when I can no longer walk or enjoy a reasonably active life, then I will be looking at my options to end my life, in discussion with my partner. I won't be tolerating a life where I have an indeterminate lifespan but limited physical ability, even if I am completely pain free. For me - and this is an entirely personal choice - that offers no quality of life.

The one element that counteracts that is my partner. I've been with her for four decades, and hope to have a couple more if things go well. We still plan on climbing Scottish mountains into our 80s, if my knees hold out, but there are lots of other activities we can enjoy together if we can't do the more strenuous activities. (No sniggering at the back please). If she wants me to carry on, then I'll listen to her and we'll discuss together, because what I do with my life deeply affects her. Likewise, if she died tomorrow, I would find it very hard to justify continuing alone, such are our feelings for each other.

My choice to die may never come, if I'm lucky, but it may come from restrictions to my capabilities or from not wanting to carry on after the loss of my life partner. Physical pain may not play any part in the question. I will, if I so wish, exercise my rights over my own body, but I just hope by the time such a choice arises, I'll be living in a more advanced society that doesn't impose a gross restriction of freedom on individuals.

I couldn't agree more. For me it's about control over my own life and the way I live it. I've lived alone for 29 years and have managed every aspect of my life. I make all my own decisions and choose how I live. If at the end of my life there is no option for me but to go into a care situation where I'm effectively handing over my everyday exisitence ( how and when I eat, where I can go, how much pain relief I have, who I can see and on and on) then that's not tolerable to me. Doesn't matter whether it's in a hospital, a care home, palliative care or at home I don't  want it. As a temporary situation it's bearable but if it's long term or if I'm going to die anyway - no no no. 

[lefthanging]

Nov 26, 2024 14:26:59 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Nov 26, 2024 14:23:10 GMT steve said:

The same arguments were made in 1999 with the introduction of national minimum wage.

People keep saying this but it’s not the same thing though. When you pay people more wages, then that can boost business because they can buy more. This NI hike is taking money out of business  to go to the government rather than to boost wages, so that people may lose wages or lose jobs.

(There is also the issue that while it may not lose jobs overall, it may hit some sectors harder)

It’s not over then, however, if that tax revenue then gets spent in the economy in a way that boosts the economy, which may offset the increased tax. If you spend it on the right things, with good multipliers, then it might have quite a powerful positive effect. 

But of course, some of this money may not be going into the economy it may be paying down debt et cetera. I’m not sure how it all balances out…

In theory couldn't increased employer national insurance have a positive effect even without considering how the increased revenue is spent? For example, if the extra costs associated with taking on employees were to encourage businesses to invest in skills and training and/or plant and machinery that boosted the productivity of the individual business (arguably one of the reasons for the comparatively low productivity in the UK is employers' tendency to rely on cheap labour at the expense of upskilling and capital investment). Of course raising employer NICS to encourage that is a blunt instrument.

[steve]

It's easy enough to install a fascist leader peacefully.

Getting them out again has somewhat greater difficulties

[barbara]

Nov 26, 2024 12:24:02 GMT lens said:

Nov 26, 2024 9:36:52 GMT barbara said:

Yes I forgot the multiplier. For every kilowat of energy it takes a boiler to produce heat I kilowatt of heat is generated. For an ASHP every 1 kilowatt of energy in creates 3 kilowats of heat out. Tremendously efficient.

barbara - arguably the story gets even better, as a gas boiler won't be 100% efficient in terms of all the heat generated being useful in terms of heating house/water. The very *best* you're likely to get now is 90% on a new boiler, and 80-90% is probably a more realistic figure. So the 3-400% of an ASHP should be compared to 80-90% of a gas boiler.

In terms of solar, I got my panels about 16-17 years ago, which meant I just qualified for the very high level of generation tariff. Eye watering by todays standards!   It was guaranteed for 25 years, and obviously couldn't last for new installations - the whole point was to kick start the industry when it was in its infancy. People who were able to go for 16 panels got payback in a very short space of time - I could only put 5 up, and together with the much higher prices at the time that has meant I only reached break even a year or two back.

Though at the time it was as much to gain practical and real experience at home as for sheer economics. If I wasn't still getting the (very generous!) 25 year tariff, then nowadays I'd be very seriously looking at a home storage battery. Regardless of solar, if you buy at around 7p/kWh, and each kWh offsets one you would otherwise buy at 20p+/kWh, well......... And such can totally change the economics around heat pumps.

Replacement in an existing house is one thing, but it really should be a no brainer in a new build.

Lucky you. My neighbour is in the same situation. And he doesn't have a battery so he still probably uses more than me. I've got a 5k battery but in retrospect I should have gone for more as it's so frustrating when at this time of year on a sunny day I  fill the battery up but with dark coming at 4pm I've used my battery up by the time I go to bed. So until dawn the next morning at around 8am I'm paying for power.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 26, 2024 14:55:54 GMT lefthanging said:

Nov 26, 2024 14:26:59 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

People keep saying this but it’s not the same thing though. When you pay people more wages, then that can boost business because they can buy more. This NI hike is taking money out of business  to go to the government rather than to boost wages, so that people may lose wages or lose jobs.

(There is also the issue that while it may not lose jobs overall, it may hit some sectors harder)

It’s not over then, however, if that tax revenue then gets spent in the economy in a way that boosts the economy, which may offset the increased tax. If you spend it on the right things, with good multipliers, then it might have quite a powerful positive effect. 

But of course, some of this money may not be going into the economy it may be paying down debt et cetera. I’m not sure how it all balances out…

In theory couldn't increased employer national insurance have a positive effect even without considering how the increased revenue is spent? For example, if the extra costs associated with taking on employees were to encourage businesses to invest in skills and training and/or plant and machinery that boosted the productivity of the individual business (arguably one of the reasons for the comparatively low productivity in the UK is employers' tendency to rely on cheap labour at the expense of upskilling and capital investment). Of course raising employer NICS to encourage that is a blunt instrument.

Yes that’s another factor. It can increase productivity in some sectors, but in others it might be hard to automate instead, so you may lose jobs or even the sector. And even if you increase productivity, is it great if you then have fewer in work and more on benefits? Ideally you might have productivity increases alongside full employment, but that’s more of a left-wing perspective where it’s important to keep creating jobs. The right-wing perspective likes to have more unemployment - or a “reserve army of labour” as they call it – as it keeps wages down, and inflation, et cetera.

(The left may then respond with more state action to bear down on inflation, as in the postwar period, but the right don’t tend to like that either, as they tend to be more for a small, or even no state approach. However things have been shifting leftwards a bit on that, with energy subsidies et cetera, and Kamala Harris was talking about a grocery tax).