Timster

Can anyone recommend a builder to look at some repointing and external/internal repairs where we've got some cracking at the front of the house (that I hope is not serious) Thanks

No, in short. They are obsessed with what she has eaten but that is it. One parent's day in a year and they had no written records at all of her development or observations. Are nurseries obliged to monitor development by reference to EYFS?

Thanks - her language and social skills are fine and developing well for her age. I have no concerns about her. It is just that the nursery does not seem to engage with her at all at the level of her development and seems to leave her with younger children so she ends up playing by herself. Having seen her with slightly older children I know what she is capable of and nursery seems to be holding her back.

Our nearly two year old has been at nursery two days a week for the last 10 months. I have no doubt she is properly cared for and looked after but I am concerned that, as she is developing language and social skills, the nursery continues to treat her like a baby. When I get her home from nursery she plays with her dinner in a way she does not on days when she is not at nursery. I only ever see her at the nursery with apparently younger children who do not engage with her the way I know she can engage with other children. When I ask the nursery staff what she has done during the day, they look blank and tell me she has run around a lot and not eaten her lunch. And then talk to her in a baby voice. We know they are not keeping any written records of her development. I want to write to the nursery to express my concerns - but am I being a pushy dad with unrealistic expectations? And what are nurseries expected to provide to under 2's above and beyond changing their nappies and feeding them? I had thought OFSTED required nurseries to help even toddlers learn and develop language and social skills. Any thoughts welcome.

But not all on the same day. The original post refers to 500,000 extra travellers every day.

Where do the figures for 500,000 extra passengers and 3 million additional trips come from? I am a bit cynical about this and tend to think it is all scaremongering and the figures are plucked out of thin air ( why would each of these extra passengers be doing six journeys?) If you think how many commuters travel into London every day, the number of people going to the Olympic venues will be a drop in the ocean. And during the summer holidays when commuter trains are half as busy as normal.

Does anyone know if the dustmen were on strike today? Or is there some other reason our bin hasn't been emptied?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Children are also subjected to maths and history > and brain washing about five a day and global > warming - so what? Ok. I now understand why I am not going to win this debate.

It's not about diversity - I am quite happy about people having diverse views, religions, cultures etc. I just don't think schools are the place to impose those views on others. Silverfox seems to forget that whilst parents may exercise free choice when they send their children to these schools, it is the children that are subjected to rigid and hostile ideas about what is right and wrong.

Wow. Since I last visited we've done the whole NHS vs private sector debate (I have a vague recollection of having this argument with MM about two years ago) and now we're on reindeers. If the 50p tax rate raised no more than an extra ?100,000 a year (after the cost of collecting etc) then I would still be in favour of it. Because if you didn't have that ?100,000 from the 50p tax rate payers then you would have to find it or save it somewhere else - maybe half a dozen teaching assistants, less money for road improvements, whatever - all things that in my book are worth more than the mild irritation of those high earners. Arguing that it is an inconsequential sum and so should be done away with is like saying it would be a waste of time pursuing MM if he decided to stop paying his taxes because his unpaid taxes represent an infinitesimally tiny fraction of the UK's tax revenue. Also, the VAT rise to 20% has almost certainly increased the burden on low earners far more than the 50p rate has raised the burden for high earners. And I would like to ask MM et al, would you rather be earning ?100k paying 40p (or 50p even) or ?30k paying 20p? If the former, then case closed.

What really irritates me about the tone of some of this is that, despite all the reasonable and objective arguments for taxing high earners or the wealthy more, some people object to it purely on a point of principle - as if the rich are some endangered species that are constantly being attacked and hounded by nasty Guardian reading types and jealous chavs and need special protection - and it's never the rich themselves that run these arguments - they know how lucky they are! It's gullible Daily Mail readers and the like who never have a chance of earning enough to pay a 50p rate.

Of course, the Labour government introduced a new tax rate that raises virtually zero money just to have a go at bashing the rich. And the Tories kept it. Really? Think about that for a fraction of a second. The only reason some people are arguing that it does not raise money is because they have an ideological objection to it. This from the Guardian: The Treasury predicts that over the next five years the 50p tax rate will raise ?5.3bn more than it would have raised if the top rate of tax had remained at 45p, and ?12.6bn more than it would have raised if the top rate had stayed at 40p. The commercial secretary to the Treasury Lord Sassoon revealed this information in answer to a parliamentary question tabled by Lord Ashcroft in November 2010. You can see it here (Column WA288)

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are more things in heaven and earth, > Horatio, > Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. > Hamlet, Act I scene v Like what?

which is not far off where the 40p tax rate starts. I don't really understand the point people are trying to make - I have no objection to taxing the top 3% rather than 1.5%. But if you make the cut-off point 45k all you're doing is effectively raising the 40p tax rate to 50p. There may be a case for that but I suspect it would seriously deflationary in a way a tax on the very highest earners is not.

Quite, not being able to pay school fees does not count as being poor in my book. And I missed MM's attempt to argue I'd conceded it was a bad idea to tax the City because it was booming - I was making the point that the 50p tax rate had not led to hordes of City-types heading to Zurich and New York.

I made no attempt to do the maths because whether it is 3% or 1.379% is wholly irrelevant. Also, I have a job to do. (And I've got 2 Maths A-levels - A grade - from when A-levels were difficult). The point is the rich can afford it - the poor can't. And there is no evidence of it disincentivising business - as I said before, most people falling within the 50p tax rate are wage earners - not entrepreneurs or businessman. If you can point to any evidence of the 50p tax rate damaging our economy then please do.

Surely this has just come down to semantics now! I don't really care whether someone who earns ?150k thinks they are rich. What they can't argue with is that they are in the top 3% (or whatever the figure is) of earners. We seem to be forgetting that if you get rid of the 50p tax rate then we have to find that money from somewhere else (assuming the government keeps to its current budget deficit reduction plans). That would either mean taxing those on lower incomes instead which is both unfair (in my subjective opinion) but also bad economic sense (wealth trickles up not down). Taxes like VAT are regressive and other taxes that might be an option would hit businesses. The 50p tax rate may not raise huge sums but as long as it raises some money then I cannot see any good reason to get rid of it in the present economic climate. Certainly there is no evidence it has damaged the economy. The one argument against it is that high earners move elsewhere (there is zero evidence that it discourages productivity - our economy simply does not work like that) and this is only really relevant to the City which remains the one bit of the UK economy still relatively booming.

I don't want to ban religion!! Or stop people expressing their religious views! When did I say that? I'm suggesting - and I'm surprised if this is controversial - that maybe there is a pretty good arguable case against funding state schools to indoctrinate children with religion and, in my experience, actively discourage those children from challenging the tenets of that religion. That is not what I call education - and schools are there to educate.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Timster, your logic is flawed because you're > trying to make it work on simple principles. > > These 'it's obvious innit' solutions don't work in > practice, because the outcome of little tweaks are > rarely obvious. > > > Your view that tax is progressive because rich > people find it easier to pay is simply incorrect. > Modern economists don't work on moral priciples, > but on productivity. Rich people are taxed more > because taxation of this income has less impact on > economic productivity. In other words they're > taxed more because it helps the economy, not > because they can pay. > > Er, that is exactly the point I made in my earlier post if you read it....

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would. Seriously. I would not flog myself to > death for less than half of the pay for working > that extra day. > > How many people turn down extra work on the > weekends or evenings because it's really not worth > it? Not that my industry does it, but if I was > offered to work, say, and extra half day on a > Saturday (paid) I really couldn't turn them down > quick enough. People don't end up earning over ?150k by doing an extra shift on a Saturday! Seriously, if I was to end up in that tax bracket it would mean I'd got a good promotion - I am not going to turn it down because I end up taking home 50p in the ? rather than 60p in the ? on a fraction of what I earn each month and I am sure you wouldn't either.

Seriously Loz, it is a complete myth that anyone has ever worked less hours or tried to avoid a promotion just to avoid paying a marginally higher rate of tax. The world just doesn't work like that.

So you'd turn down a pay rise that took you into the 50p tax bracket? Really??

Oops - crossed with SJ who makes my point in just a few words.

Interesting - and glad to see we're back on topic - but wholly irrelevant. The very sensible reason for taxing high earners more than those on low incomes is that they can afford it. Person C's lifestyle is unlikely to be impacted very much by a marginal 50p tax rate. At the other end of the scale, Person A may not be able to afford to buy his children the new school uniform they desperately need if he has to shoulder just a little bit more of the tax burden. Leaving aside ideological questions as to whether this is 'fair', it has implications for the economy. If you cut taxes for the poor, they won't save that money or let it sit in the bank, they will spend it - the tax cut goes straight back into the economy. The local independent clothes retailer sells a new school uniform which makes a difference to his busienss staying afloat that month. If you cut taxes for the rich, it will make little or no difference to how much they spend, and so there is negligible benefit to the economy. This was the lesson the US learned from Bush's tax cuts for the rich. And it is worth remembering that someone who earns ?200k has far more than 20 times the disposable income of someone earning ?20k. The household earning ?20k may have little or no disposable income after rent, bills, food etc - for the person earning ?200k, well it's mostly gravy. Oh, and can someone please explain why someone earning ?150k is deemed a 'wealth creator'?! Someone else has created that wealth for them (us, the taxpayer, if they are a middle manager at RBS). Entrepreneurs and small businessmen are wealth creators and most of them earn a lot less than ?150k.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great angst over a Muslim free school opening in > Blackburn. > > Good. > > The more free schools that open, including > creationist etc, the more liberal our society will > become. > > There is a mistaken view in this country that the > more we are all taught the same the more tolerant > we become as a society. > > Deeeeer, as my kids would say, you only become > tolerant with diversity. Is this meant to be ironic? I'll tolerate most things but I won't tolerate intolerance.