It is a stupid hidden tax thing. They don't tax the first 12.5K of income, if it is below 100K. They start reducing that 12.5K limit as your income goes up, for every £2, it reduces by £1.
So, if you earn 100K, the first 12.5K of your income is not taxable
If you earn 105K, the first 10K is not taxable
If you earn 125K, there is no non taxable amount.
So the tax rate gets applied two times, that's why the strange thing between 100K and 125K happens
It also effects your eligibility for free pre-school child care, which is worth £9000 /year to effected people. As you are paying 50% ni and income tax from 80 to 100, you are better off earning 80k than 100k.
You can get around this with salary sacrifice pension, which can push your pre tax income down bellow the critical levels. But most employers refuse to offer it.
At a small company, you might be able to make them do it.
Most countries in Western Europe have the social net curse blogging them down. The high tax, high social care system only works if the country is on a good growth track. As more people turn old and retire, someone has to pay for those. With wage stagnation in most normal occupations and lack of growth, the way they have tried to tackle this is with increase in immigration, which in turn keeps wages low in low paying sectors. Also, unlike US which does integration really well, this is not true for Europe where high immigration is leading to even frictions because of lack of integration.
On top of that, tech emerging as a big industry which forms a big part of the whole economic output of a country, has led to Europe losing out to US. Although only China through thier protectionism has been safe from that.
You can see this in the commentary about UK politics, where they don't have money to fund NHS and NHS wages haven't grown which has bogged down their healthcare system. Most of the manufacturing ecosystem is completely degraded. Productivity is at a complete toss as well, as they are not even able to build high speed rail well now, which for a social net country like UK should be of paramount importance.
To combat this, they have increased taxation, either through freezing slabs or moving down tax slabs. This penalises people in high wage professions and it leads to loss of competitiveness.
You know, the US spends most of our government money on old people too (social security, medicare, etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/... We just get less bang for the buck for it because our healthcare and housing are so terribly inefficient and expensive, and we don't have a strong culture of familial support.
We can't build high speed rail either -- we can't even keep our low-speed rail running well -- and our answer to expensive healthcare is typically just "let them die, we can replace them" (immigration too, except we don't have to give our immigrants anything, just wink and pretend we hate them).
At the end of the day no society has it all figured out yet, but I'd love to live in a place with social services and a less hostile democracy so that all the citizens can work together to figure out next steps, instead of being dragged kicking and screaming by the rich. It's just a more collectivist mindset, not necessarily better or more right in any way.
> You know, the US spends most of our government money on old people too (social security, medicare, etc.).
My whole point was how these issues are less of an issue for US, again comparing with UK
US has better age demographic distribution than UK
The net tax burden on an average UK person is way higher compared to US while having worse average wages. Quick googling shows per capita income tax collected in US is $15K, while in UK it is $21K
GDP per capita of UK is $46K compared to US's 70K
If even after having high taxes, a country is having problem funding social services, then that's a big issue as the high taxes are meant to take care of that. US doesn't have this issue as taxes being lower, people can use the money not spent on tax on funding the social care things for themselves.
Also, overall US is still an attractive place for high earners so it will keep on attracting people from those segments which will boost its tax revenues and lead to decline of Europe. As while western Europe might be still a good place for people on median wages or below, USA might be much better for people on the other end
> US has better age demographic distribution than UK
I can believe that. Japan's even worse off, wonder what they're gonna do...
> The net tax burden on an average UK person is way higher compared to US while having worse average wages. Quick googling shows per capita income tax collected in US is $15K, while in UK it is $21K
It's a bit trickier than that, because some of the same services (like healthcare) are still paid by the typical consumer in the US, it just doesn't show up in their taxes. $6k/year might actually just cover the premiums for a small family (what you pay the insurer before you use any services). Using that healthcare would be way more expensive.
I think a fairer comparison would be discretionary income (disposable income minus cost of living expenses like housing, healthcare, food, education), etc. Unfortunately that data isn't easy to find, and definitions differ, but without considering all of those, it's not really apples-to-apples just to look at taxation rates.
The average person is more affected by "how much money do I have left to spend after the essentials" than "am I paying the government or a private company for these essentials".
> $6k/year might actually just cover the premiums for a small family (
This is not true anywhere in the US. The lowest premiums are ~$400 per person per month for bronze level insurance.
Lowest premiums for a family of four would be ~$2k per month plus annual deductible of $5k to $10k plus annual out of pocket maximum of ~$10k to $17k (legal limit).
At least until the end of 2024, insurance premiums are capped via subsidies (either paid directly, or as tax credits). The computation of the cap is extremely complex, but basically: you do not pay more than 8.3% of your household AGI for your state's 2nd most expensive silver-level insurance plan.
This is not widely talked about. It was a part of the ACA, but there was a salary cap somewhere near 100k/yr. The cap was removed during the COVID19 pandemic, and this currently runs to the end of 2024.
I used to pay $1300/month for my wife and I (in our late 50s); I currently pay $440/month (annual income approx $120k).
Interesting, does that only apply if you buy via healthcare.gov?
I see the full $30k+ in annual premiums that my employer plus I am paying in my W-2 (box 12 code DD), which is money that could have been cash compensation.
It does not apply (by my understanding) to employer-provided insurance. It does apply to all individually provided insurance whether purchased on exchange or not.
US GDP per capita is $80,000 for 2023, not $70k. It's nearly double that of France or Britain at this point, and rapidly running away from them both. It's now more than double that of Japan.
I think you are focusing on less important things.
Europe faces three big issues: demographic crisis, energy/resources dependency, and security vulnerability. US on the other hand will have good demographic outlook for most of this century, it is energy (including renewables) and resources rich, and separated by oceans from anyone who can threaten it.
People have been trying to link the two together, but I see no direct link between (good) economic growth and public social spending.
It is not because of welfare that there are less startups in Europe and it is not because of welfare that the big companies in Europe prefer to be more conservative with their spending on R&D. It's cultural. It's people being more financially conservative and risk averse.
> To combat this, they have increased taxation, either through freezing slabs or moving down tax slabs. This penalises people in high wage professions and it leads to loss of competitiveness.
I'm a relatively well paid software engineer in the UK, and I don't recognise this at all. I would be very happy to be taxed more to have a better health system. I wouldn't see this as being penalised, but something I'd vote for.
I have plenty of disposable income; if I had a bit less I'd probably spend less on buying expensive tech gadgets from American companies, investing in international shares or taking foreign holidays. It would be better for the country if that cash was diverted towards the NHS. I think overall it would make the country more prosperous. A sick workforce is an inefficient workforce.
Having a bit less cash would not make me less keen to start a company or change employer for more cash. In fact it would probably do the opposite.
And yet these countries still focus on taxing income only, meanwhile a massive mountain of growing untouchable wealth is sitting there, owned by the older generation who supposedly need to be supported with the income generated by the young.
Tax and wealth distribution needs a fundamental rethink going into the next few decades - I really don't have high hopes that the current approaches will work. As you say, they are predicated on high growth scenarios which western nations are no longer experiencing at a macro level.
We do have the money to fund the NHS. Successive Conservative governments have made the choice to defund the NHS, along with public health, and social care. And they did all of this on top of Brexit.
The problems of the UK and US declining industrial base is due to lack of “protectionism” as you call it. Really it’s been a de facto industrial policy of disinvestment and off shoring driven by financialization of their economies over the last ca. 45-years. Free capital flows benefit capitalists, not ordinary citizens.
If companies are letting go of real estate as some employees want to go remote, why would the said employees who are remote want to stick in the center of city where these offices are, but not go out a bit outside of the center or even suburbs.
If they do move out, the demand of real estate in the center anyway goes down
Which were gutted, abated, and rebuilt from the frame up.
Office building floors are concrete, usually. You cannot dictate where plumbing goes. Drain pipes are ruled by the iron fist of gravity. And down is technically in your downstairs neighbor's space.
I have seen few buildings in London itself which were warehouses and now have these weird shaped apartments with high ceiling height and a separate floor bedroom arrangement. A lot was kept from the old structure, some of them even make the plumbing added look more of an industrial design
Industrial garage or old single story garment factory conversions are extremely popular with hipsters. Many of the smaller places can be converted into...something. I've seen some beautiful conversions in Pioneer Square/downtown Seattle.
But the taller office buildings are much harder to convert, not impossible, and can lead to some stunning excesses (like really high ceilings with horrible heating costs) that wouldn't be possible in a direct for residential build.
> , some of them even make the plumbing added look more of an industrial design
This was probably out of necessity rather than aesthetics, but again, hipsters (especially rich ones) love this stuff.
Ya. Early 20th century work spaces with character work well for conversions. 10 year old office building that didn’t work out doesn’t…although my cousin lived in one in Seattle for a few years, he said it was weird but the rent was cheap.
And I doubt Meta spent $181m to get out of a lease of a warehouse.
Skyscrapers are much more difficult to convert (there's an NYT article on it).
Midrise buildings might be the best bet, but even then unless you allow "basically slumlord" conversions, it's probably simpler to knock and rebuild, even if you disguise it by leaving the outer walls up or something.
The “hang everything from the elevator shaft” design doesn’t allow that, does it? You might be able to take it to the joists if it’s not hurricane season but not more than that.
Plus, a converted loft that was formerly a hosiery mill from the turn of the century has a certain character to it. An apartment that used to be an ATT call center doesn't have quite the same appeal.
Not that it justifies the deletion, I wonder how a state sponsored propaganda outlet came to be regarded well among global audiences. It would be interesting to read up on what they have done to garner that image.
Al Jazeera is really reliable, much more than American media companies. People should first do research on this, before they start spreading those BS ideas.
Since 9/11 Americans can't trust anything with an "arabic background", they are constantly bombarded by the media, so they can't ever discover that the middle east is much more than a place with oil or "weapons of mass destruction".
Al Jazeera hires top journalists, they are well-funded. They are just very concerned when talking about Qatar, which in a geopolitical sense, doesn't matter, all other news are typically very unbiased.
Only a few news outlets from Europe are similar in quality.
Americans rarely want to see the truth anyways, so they stick with those republican/democrat-leaning media outlets, eating Mc Donalds, going bankrupt on a hospital emergency and believing in the American dream: you need to be asleep to believe on it.
> They are just very concerned when talking about Qatar,
Doesn't seem like the sign of a good news org if you can't say a word of criticism about the country you're headquartered at. Makes me wonder what else is rotten in there, how can we know the rules of the country aren't dictating a bunch of other stuff to the news?
News should be as independent as possible.
I mean FOX News and Newsmax are "as independent as possible" in that regard but they're both utter trash, so it's obviously more nuanced than that. Discarding Al Jazeera entirely because they can't/won't go hard on Qatari matters (which you can read anywhere else if you really care) is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to me.
I think the problem is not that they won't criticise them, it shows that they lack editorial freedom, which means any coverage even if global matters coming from them should be looked at with suspicion, like what would be Qatar monarchy's view on this global issue
In another sense it helps that you can tell exactly where they're coming from on most issues.
Qatar threw money at them "to be the best of the best" in global reporting .. pretty much because they can then point to Al Jaz's world class credentials when it comes to the void on bad reporting at home.
I can see a time in the future when they might start strongly bending their international reporting .. but for now at least they play with an even bat on most issues outside their own borders, they've hired a number of top tier global reporters away from prestige journals elsewhere.
I've been observing media across the world for decades .. all media has biases, it actually helps to know what those are.
It is naive to think any news outlet shouldn't be regarded with any amount of suspicion. Bias exists everywhere, if you select a news source and blindly trust it you're going to be misled some day.
Nope, but it does show that you can be completely free of any government involvement and still suck. From what I've seen AJ has had some pretty decent reporting overall and if we're looking at it in terms of propaganda those supposedly "free" ones are positively dripping with it and make AJ look saintly by comparison.
How is this different from Fox never criticising Murdoch? Newspaper magnets - in the AJ case it’s the royal family - have agendas that their media is expected to tow or be fired?
I would say one has to see how pervasive the interference from the owners is. It could be that Fox is just as bad, I don't follow it much.
I asked ChatGPT:
"are there fox news reporters who are critical of donald trump ?"
"Yes, throughout Donald Trump's presidency and even before, there were reporters and commentators associated with Fox News who, at various times, were critical of him, his actions, or his policies. While Fox News is often seen as leaning conservative and many of its hosts and commentators have been supportive of Trump, it's a diverse network with a range of voices. Some figures who have shown willingness to criticize Trump include:
Chris Wallace: The anchor of "Fox News Sunday," Wallace has frequently asked tough questions of Trump administration officials and has occasionally criticized Trump directly. He's been praised for his moderating of the first 2020 presidential debate, during which he challenged both candidates on their positions.
Shepard Smith: Before his departure from Fox News in 2019, Smith, who anchored "Shepard Smith Reporting," was known for his straightforward news reporting and sometimes offered fact-checks that contradicted claims by Trump or his allies.
Neil Cavuto: The host of "Your World with Neil Cavuto" has been willing to push back against some of Trump's claims, particularly around issues related to the economy and Trump's comments about the Federal Reserve.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: The senior judicial analyst for Fox News often offered legal perspectives that didn't align with the Trump administration's stances. He was notably critical of Trump during the impeachment proceedings.
Bret Baier: As anchor of "Special Report with Bret Baier," Baier aimed for an even-handed approach to news coverage and occasionally highlighted discrepancies between Trump's statements and established facts.
Megyn Kelly: Although she left Fox News in early 2017, during her tenure she had notable confrontations with Trump, especially during the 2016 Republican primary debates.
Juan Williams: A co-host of "The Five," Williams often plays the role of the liberal counterpoint on the show and has frequently criticized Trump.
It's worth noting that while these individuals have criticized Trump on specific issues or actions, they also may have praised him or supported other aspects of his presidency. The extent and nature of their critiques varied."
To me it shows a certain degree of intellectual freedom and non cult like thinking for Fox news.
So you'd need to give the same test to Al-Jazeera to see what kind of diversity of thought they allow. Nothing I've seen makes me think its any good.
I'm sorry but if you're having to ask ChatGPT for whether FOX is biased and are satisfied with an answer like As anchor of "Special Report with Bret Baier," Baier aimed for an even-handed approach as an argument then you really need to actually try it out or step back and say "I don't know anything about this topic"
I don't know enough about the topic, fully admit it. What's wrong with asking ChatGPT. Do you have a good way of getting an unbiased answer for what I asked?
Re fox: Fox is so pro-trump that they are in court for claiming election fraud and all their internal messages are now public and you can read them discussing how they must support trump even over them not believing his claims.
Re trusting an LLM’s answers: HN is full of detailed discussion about how they work and how they hallucinate. There is often delight expressed when someone pastes something from chatgpt that is actually factually correct, but this is because we marvel at the statistical chances, not because we believe chatgpt groks the subject!
For fun, ask it about something that you know a lot about. Even when it is making stuff up it is really good at prose.
Allegedly Al Jazeera English is much more reasonable and balanced than Arabic Al Jazeera. Unfortunately that's a claim that basically relies on trust - i.e. an Arabic speaker with cultural knowledge willing to be unbiased in their analysis. I suspect it is true though, Qatar is not a pleasant country and certainly not a democracy.
I am assuming that this is American bias talking? Plenty of other cultures are more trusting of government than the US’s is.
The main State-sponsored media outlet in my country is considered to be of a pretty high quality. It has some international recognition.
I’d say a fair chunk of those that actually care about media outlet trustworthiness (and aren’t just sharing whatever articles come their way barring a few outlets that are in their person blocklist) are aware of the nuances of AJ’s authority and trustworthiness. The reality is that they have built this reputation by doing heaps and heaps of good reporting, not even in spite of being state-sponsored, but really because of it. There are certain topics that you shouldn’t listen to AJ regarding. Otherwise? They do a good job.
Well, I did write state sponsored propaganda outlet, not state sponsored media outlet as I think the journalistic freedom an organisation like BBC gets is different. They can criticise policies of UK government, something Al Jazeera can't.
I would argue that they just have more polish to their presentation rather than having more integrity, and the coverage in local language is quite different from the one in English
They are pretty much the equivalent to the BBC or CNN: a lot of it is alright, but they are still tools for their own gov propaganda.
Because they are different govs, with different agendas, each of them see the propaganda of others as evil, but it's still all very much propaganda.
Remember CNN diffused many bits on how WMD were in Irak to justify the war the UN voted against. The USA went to war anyway, and we learned there were no WMD.
Al Jazeera does the same, but for their side.
It is, nevertheless, quite qualitative content for many topics, and give you another points of on the world events than our own medias outlet.
I am sorry, but they aren't. This is just false equivalence, you can just go read BBC's coverage of UK politics and you will see criticism of their government
> I wonder how a state sponsored propaganda outlet came to be regarded well among global audiences.
Speaking personally, as an ex-journalist I found their English-language coverage generally to be pretty well-balanced and well reported - so that's probably why. And I came to them with a pretty sceptical eye. I've heard that their arabic language stories are rather different - but I don't have a way of checking that for myself.
Wow I have heard so much that Al Jazeera is pretty reliable, never did I realise until I read your comment that they are owned by Qatari monarchy. Qatar, the country everyone was practically calling us to boycott in the 2022 World Cup. Not suitable to hold the World Cup but suitable for us to get news from apparently. They do generally seem to have a high quality of journalism though so I am suprised at how they maintain at least a decent amount of integrity.
Makes sense and I can probably deal with that since I really do tend to find quality articles from them, and most global news is not about Qatar. However, does Qatar have any allies that they are also likely to be biased about? Or does the influence not extend that far?
At the end of the day it's really just a matter of which state propaganda outlet you distrust the least, by which metric they seem to score pretty well. Beyond obvious biases one would expect to see, I also find them a little UK-influenced but otherwise I struggle to find a better state sponsored propaganda outlet.
If I had to guess, it's because they have actual reporters on the ground getting shot at and killed, unlike many other media outlets who count on heresay and statements.
You realize that all media/press is backed by something, right?
Do you prefer click-baity ridden press looking for ad revenue instead? Or media as a business
where they avoid reporting anything controversial that would hurt their business/image/relationships/backers.
So funny to see *unbiased HN users take up pitchfork in support of a literally Monarchy(House of Thani) + State(Qatar) owned propaganda machine news outlet which constantly writes in favour of their Middle East Masters and silently prefers not to tell the truth in their reporting.
Here's their front page. https://www.aljazeera.com Since you say they "constantly write in favour of Quatar, it shouldn't be hard for your find examples.
Certainly there's very negative coverage of Quatar's many faults, but that's not the same as constantly pushing a positive agenda. In other areas the reporting seems sound.
The definitive discovery of Moon water came from Chandrayaan-1 which carried with it a NASA-provided science instrument called the Moon Mineralogical Mapper—M3 for short—that observed how the surface absorbed infrared light. Using this data, M3 determined that previously suspected water molecules were ice inside the Moon’s polar craters [0].
However, the first direct evidence of water vapor near the Moon was obtained by the Apollo 14 in 1971 [0]. A series of bursts of water vapor ions were observed by the instrument mass spectrometer at the lunar surface near the Apollo 14 landing site.
NASA LCROSS confirmed it before the Indian mission (which NASA instruments also on the Indian mission confirmed first). After NASA confirmed, Indian officials came out with their own announcement
So, if you earn 100K, the first 12.5K of your income is not taxable
If you earn 105K, the first 10K is not taxable
If you earn 125K, there is no non taxable amount.
So the tax rate gets applied two times, that's why the strange thing between 100K and 125K happens