Fair point, but business taxes are very low indeed. So if you are a business owner all would be taken into account. Switzerland is complicated and the cost of living is very high, so perhaps I should have applied a different example. How do they apply their wealth tax to your knowledge?
It varies by canton but if you want to live in a town (and as a business it's quite likely) you pay something like 0.05%-0.3% per year starting at quite a low level (about £50,000 in Zurich, though you'd only pay £25/year on wealth of £100,000). It does include all property. So if your assets were £10 million, you'd pay about £30,000/year. It's not very controversial - I know Swiss conservatives who feel it's not a bad thing as a gentle nudge to actually do something with your money instead of just lazily leaving it in the bank. I never heard of anyone bothering to try to avoid it.
I can understand the need to nudge people to do something with spare cash. But my home consumes cash. It doesn't generate it. So it seems to me that having a low CGT-type tax on property when you sell it (thus avoiding valuation issues) is a better way to go.
I do agree though that there need to be higher council tax bands and I'd tax very heavily indeed those who buy property in the U.K. from abroad and leave it empty.
Yes, I see the point. When I was on the MPs' pension fund committee that helped former members in dire circumstances, we considered a sad case of a very prominent person from past public life (I think I'm still bound by confidentiality so I won't say more) who had fallen on evil times - they owned a large property in Central London but were literally living from hand to mouth, economising on food and unable to afford to repair a broken window. They were ancient and didn't feel up to moving. We decided that the public wouldn't really want to have someone who they'd been fond of to be in that situation so we gave them a hand, even though rationally they should have sold up and lived comfortably on the proceeds, or taken equity release - but at 90 or whatever they were it clearly just felt too much.
"Nicola Sturgeon has questioned the UK’s equality watchdog after it urged the Scottish Government to carry out "more detailed consideration" of plans to reform gender recognition laws."
The issue is undoubtedly being used as a proxy for internal SNP feuds with Joanna Cherry getting a lot of grief for her stance on the issue (as has, of course, J K Rowling, a Scottish resident and Indy-sceptic).
Personally, I find it all a bit bewildering, TBH.
Most of Sturgeon's inner circle are halfwits obsessed with self ID and all the crap that goes with it. They supposedly had public consultaions but only talked to the bunch of halfwits that they fund , the same halfwits that are pushing self ID. Now that teh chaicanery is getting publicity it will be interesting to see if the timid , spineless SNP MSP's stay the course and follow the orders. Labour are just as bad.
This kind of bigoted transphobia is why the ALBA party is going nowhere and Scotland will never become independent.
It seems rather unlikely to me that the SNP’s views on trans rights were the key voting factor for a large enough segment of swing voters in the 2014 referendum. But perhaps I’m wrong and all those right leaning Tory voters that voted No would have otherwise changed their minds on independence.
Fair point, but business taxes are very low indeed. So if you are a business owner all would be taken into account. Switzerland is complicated and the cost of living is very high, so perhaps I should have applied a different example. How do they apply their wealth tax to your knowledge?
It varies by canton but if you want to live in a town (and as a business it's quite likely) you pay something like 0.05%-0.3% per year starting at quite a low level (about £50,000 in Zurich, though you'd only pay £25/year on wealth of £100,000). It does include all property. So if your assets were £10 million, you'd pay about £30,000/year. It's not very controversial - I know Swiss conservatives who feel it's not a bad thing as a gentle nudge to actually do something with your money instead of just lazily leaving it in the bank. I never heard of anyone bothering to try to avoid it.
I can understand the need to nudge people to do something with spare cash. But my home consumes cash. It doesn't generate it. So it seems to me that having a low CGT-type tax on property when you sell it (thus avoiding valuation issues) is a better way to go.
I do agree though that there need to be higher council tax bands and I'd tax very heavily indeed those who buy property in the U.K. from abroad and leave it empty.
The issue with that low CGT-type tax is that when you look at current stamp duty rates there is little to be gained by even applying stand rate CGT rates in most cases.
Stupid example - you buy a house at £300,000 and after 5 years sell it at £500,000. The CGT on that is £56,000 but just selling that house (and buying another) generates 2x£25,000 in stamp duty.
We literally end up implementing a tax on wealth because there is nothing left that isn't taxed to the hilt...
All politicians should be forced to read Helen Joyce's superb book "Trans" and if they want to persevere with self-id for gender and the rest of the Trans lobby programme they should be required to provide a detailed rebuttal of her arguments and the evidence that she presents.
But that won't exactly solve the problem when most people attacking politicians have views very different from that book.
It's the MPs and others (such as JK Rowling) who don't like self-id who are the ones being most fiercely attacked
It will help. I get the impression that most politicians don't actually understand the issues and blow with the wind created by a small numbers of Trans fanatics who have policy captured many organisations including most campaigning groups that would be generally labelled left wing.
"Nicola Sturgeon has questioned the UK’s equality watchdog after it urged the Scottish Government to carry out "more detailed consideration" of plans to reform gender recognition laws."
The issue is undoubtedly being used as a proxy for internal SNP feuds with Joanna Cherry getting a lot of grief for her stance on the issue (as has, of course, J K Rowling, a Scottish resident and Indy-sceptic).
Personally, I find it all a bit bewildering, TBH.
Most of Sturgeon's inner circle are halfwits obsessed with self ID and all the crap that goes with it. They supposedly had public consultaions but only talked to the bunch of halfwits that they fund , the same halfwits that are pushing self ID. Now that teh chaicanery is getting publicity it will be interesting to see if the timid , spineless SNP MSP's stay the course and follow the orders. Labour are just as bad.
This kind of bigoted transphobia is why the ALBA party is going nowhere and Scotland will never become independent.
It seems rather unlikely to me that the SNP’s views on trans rights were the key voting factor for a large enough segment of swing voters in the 2014 referendum. But perhaps I’m wrong and all those right leaning Tory voters that voted No would have otherwise changed their minds on independence.
It's one of the weirdest posts I've ever seen on PB.
If Salmond embraces the trans lobby, he'll lead Alba to a majority in Holyrood and Scotland to independence?
I agree with Mike, simply on the basis of putting myself in the position of a voter there. As a non-Tory, in the circumstances I would be desperate to find another candidate to vote for, to register a protest at the scandalous shambles Johnson’s government has become. It would be difficult, given the candidate list, but I’d find someone. I’d certainly be motivated to vote, and wouldn’t take abstention as any sort of protest. If I thought one of them might win, I might even consider voting tactically.
Whereas, if a disgruntled Tory, I feel I would see staying at home as a way of washing my hands of the current state of affairs. The only two things that would drag me out would be if I felt so strongly that I wanted to protest by voting UKiP or whatever, or an appeal based on the tragic events that led to the election in the first place - and that would have to be very carefully pitched indeed.
Or, of course, if I was a loyal Tory and wanted to support both the candidate and our clown-led government . Are there enough of these people in Southend to reach 50%?
When the candidate list was announced I looked carefully for a non-Tory candidate I could support. Except for one independent, about whom I could find no information, I decided that even the Johnson-led Tories would be more deserving of my vote then the rogue's gallery of actual or borderline fascists and anti-vaxxers.
Perhaps when it came to it I would spoil my ballot, rather than voting Tory, but if I thought there was any risk of the Tory losing I think I'd have to vote against the (further) far-right.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
When I spoke with those workers, none of them were under any illusion that they were supporting a saint. Boris already had a track record as a maverick,
It is genuinely astonishing that we are the position where breaking the law, the ministerial code (repeatedly) and lying can now just be explained away so easily. We are going to come to bitterly regret allowing such actions when one day a much worse person than Johnson gets in. There used to be an idea of honour and public service in the two main parties, this now seems to be lost in the spirit of 'electability'.
For the good of us all, I really think the Tories would be served by being in opposition for a while.
The sad thing is that the public have tended to have an unrealistically bad impression of politicians - viewing them as all in it for themselves and on the take whereas in reality most are fairly selfless people motivated by a large dollop of public spiritedness. Under Boris Johnson the government's dishonesty, greed and corruption has now caught up with that perception, or even surpassed it.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
When I spoke with those workers, none of them were under any illusion that they were supporting a saint. Boris already had a track record as a maverick,
It is genuinely astonishing that we are the position where breaking the law, the ministerial code (repeatedly) and lying can now just be explained away so easily. We are going to come to bitterly regret allowing such actions when one day a much worse person than Johnson gets in. There used to be an idea of honour and public service in the two main parties, this now seems to be lost in the spirit of 'electability'.
For the good of us all, I really think the Tories would be served by being in opposition for a while.
The sad thing is that the public have tended to have an unrealistically bad impression of politicians - viewing them as all in it for themselves and on the take whereas in reality most are fairly selfless people motivated by a large dollop of public spiritedness. Under Boris Johnson the government's dishonesty, greed and corruption has now caught up with that perception, or even surpassed it.
They fucking aren't. Look at the fast track PPE scheme, look at that Duffield woman pulling dow 232,000 a year in expenses
Fair point, but business taxes are very low indeed. So if you are a business owner all would be taken into account. Switzerland is complicated and the cost of living is very high, so perhaps I should have applied a different example. How do they apply their wealth tax to your knowledge?
It varies by canton but if you want to live in a town (and as a business it's quite likely) you pay something like 0.05%-0.3% per year starting at quite a low level (about £50,000 in Zurich, though you'd only pay £25/year on wealth of £100,000). It does include all property. So if your assets were £10 million, you'd pay about £30,000/year. It's not very controversial - I know Swiss conservatives who feel it's not a bad thing as a gentle nudge to actually do something with your money instead of just lazily leaving it in the bank. I never heard of anyone bothering to try to avoid it.
I can understand the need to nudge people to do something with spare cash. But my home consumes cash. It doesn't generate it. So it seems to me that having a low CGT-type tax on property when you sell it (thus avoiding valuation issues) is a better way to go.
I do agree though that there need to be higher council tax bands and I'd tax very heavily indeed those who buy property in the U.K. from abroad and leave it empty.
The issue with that low CGT-type tax is that when you look at current stamp duty rates there is little to be gained by even applying stand rate CGT rates in most cases.
Stupid example - you buy a house at £300,000 and after 5 years sell it at £500,000. The CGT on that is £56,000 but just selling that house (and buying another) generates 2x£25,000 in stamp duty.
We literally end up implementing a tax on wealth because there is nothing left that isn't taxed to the hilt...
That’s the key point. You have a wealth tax when you’ve taxed everything else as much as you can. After a home tax you’re just left with a family silver tax.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
But it's not an inheritance tax, it's an annual tax that replaces (depending on the level it is applied at) stamp duty, possibly council tax (as it would be easier to value and less politically dynamite than a council tax revaluation) and the Social Care levy.
What it isn't is an inheritance tax - it only becomes one for people (such as the former MP Nick mentioned below) who are asset rich and cash poor.
@Foxy , is the change to testing positive but still coming in an England thing?
My gf (Doctor) spams LFTs and is mildly depressed every time they come back negative. Off for another 13 hour shift this morning!
She's pretty settled on becoming a part time Highland GP... could be very lucrative if I can get paid my Edinburgh salary while living in Kinlochbervie.
Yes, it is England only as far as I know. Quite likely that some businesses such as hospitals, won't loosen guidance.
If your GF is getting down about work then she isn't alone. Indeed all the best doctors that I know have had their doubts about it as a career. Indeed I would go so far as to say that anyone without that questioning of their choices probably lacks the insight to be a good doctor. Work can be a drag, indeed that is why we have to be paid to do it.
Medicine though has a very wide range of options for a satisfying career to suit nearly all tastes. I have a friend who runs an ICU in a trauma centre. He is quite open about not liking conscious patients! Others that find in that human contact real job satisfaction.
Personally, I would find part time working difficult. I like to be at it hammer and tongs or not at all. The worst jobs that I had in my training were the quiet ones.
I think too that there is a malaise in General Practice, that I cannot quite put my finger on. GPS seem to burn out quite young, with fewer and fewer reaching normal retirement age. When I qualified 30 years ago, it was the opposite problem, with GPs staying on long past their sell by date. Maybe it is different in Scotland. Essential though to find a practice with partners on the same wavelength as good or bad colleagues are the makings and breaking of a contented career.
Is part of this still about early retirement encouraged by a tax rate hike when the max pension pot size is reached around 50?
(Not making a point; I can see it could be an issue).
Yes, that is part of it, but even part time GPs who therefore have much smaller pensions seem to burn out quite young and quit.
The solution to the NHS staffing issue is really about retention, which is not all about pay. It needs to be about restoring some degree of autonomy and control to staff, otherwise they exercise that autonomy and control by leaving.
When I talked to a doctor recently, his description of his working conditions was straight out of Taylorism. And not in a good way.
So the NHS is mis-managing to practices that were obsolete. 100 years ago.
I've 'observed' GP-land all my working life, as a pharmacist, in one capacity or another. It's not easy being a GP; Dr's Finlay and Cameron are long ago dead and gone, and, especially with a more mobile population GP's, even in partnerships no longer see patients from the cradle to the grave, or as an middle-aged pharmacist of my acquaintance once remarked; 'I'm now weighing the babies of the babies I weighed when I first came here'. That was of course in the days when baby weighing scales were a feature of every 'chemists'! Secondly we've sorted out the common diseases. For example, mass vaccination has cut childhood diseases enormously, so that GP's now trend to see less treatable conditions, and, very importantly have less time in which to deal with them. Thirdly, Dr's F&C were unlikely to be visited by people commenting on their practice. Thus, some years ago I had to analyse the prescribing of one practice because of their high use of sleeping tablets. Turned out they were unduly influenced by a care home where the staff liked quiet night shifts, but that's another story. The point is that there was this chap looking at their prescribing and asking questions. Then there's the social services aspect. Given that social services are underfunded, the GP has become the key to many of them, and that's a time consuming and frequently unrewarding activity.
I could go on, but won't.
I agree that there does need to be external scrutiny on things like prescribing for just the reasons that you say. Modern reforms have tended to reduce clinical variation, but do tend to miss that variation can be an asset as well as a liability. Innovative practitioners wind up constantly frustrated.
I agree. Interestingly I have, not long ago almost been hoist with own petard! As you, Dr F, will gather, I spent some time as a PCT Prescribing Advisor. In retirement I was prescribed Ibuprofen gel for some intractable muscular problems. Relatively cheap, if some what messy. It became unavailable, and knowing what was available. I asked the GP for some Diclofenac, cream, which turned out to be much more cosmetically acceptable, about as effective, but more expensive. I can see why my 'successor' would make the choice they did!
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
But it's not an inheritance tax, it's an annual tax that replaces (depending on the level it is applied at) stamp duty, possibly council tax (as it would be easier to value and less politically dynamite than a council tax revaluation) and the Social Care levy.
What it isn't is an inheritance tax - it only becomes one for people (such as the former MP Nick mentioned below) who are asset rich and cash poor.
i.e. old people, which is who most people inherit stuff from.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Fair point, but business taxes are very low indeed. So if you are a business owner all would be taken into account. Switzerland is complicated and the cost of living is very high, so perhaps I should have applied a different example. How do they apply their wealth tax to your knowledge?
It varies by canton but if you want to live in a town (and as a business it's quite likely) you pay something like 0.05%-0.3% per year starting at quite a low level (about £50,000 in Zurich, though you'd only pay £25/year on wealth of £100,000). It does include all property. So if your assets were £10 million, you'd pay about £30,000/year. It's not very controversial - I know Swiss conservatives who feel it's not a bad thing as a gentle nudge to actually do something with your money instead of just lazily leaving it in the bank. I never heard of anyone bothering to try to avoid it.
I can understand the need to nudge people to do something with spare cash. But my home consumes cash. It doesn't generate it. So it seems to me that having a low CGT-type tax on property when you sell it (thus avoiding valuation issues) is a better way to go.
I do agree though that there need to be higher council tax bands and I'd tax very heavily indeed those who buy property in the U.K. from abroad and leave it empty.
The issue with that low CGT-type tax is that when you look at current stamp duty rates there is little to be gained by even applying stand rate CGT rates in most cases.
Stupid example - you buy a house at £300,000 and after 5 years sell it at £500,000. The CGT on that is £56,000 but just selling that house (and buying another) generates 2x£25,000 in stamp duty.
We literally end up implementing a tax on wealth because there is nothing left that isn't taxed to the hilt...
That’s the key point. You have a wealth tax when you’ve taxed everything else as much as you can. After a home tax you’re just left with a family silver tax.
When we have a vast army of unpaid slave robots to do all the work and revolutionise productivity, perhaps we will finally be able to get rid of Pitt the Younger’s temporary tax on income.
Fair point, but business taxes are very low indeed. So if you are a business owner all would be taken into account. Switzerland is complicated and the cost of living is very high, so perhaps I should have applied a different example. How do they apply their wealth tax to your knowledge?
It varies by canton but if you want to live in a town (and as a business it's quite likely) you pay something like 0.05%-0.3% per year starting at quite a low level (about £50,000 in Zurich, though you'd only pay £25/year on wealth of £100,000). It does include all property. So if your assets were £10 million, you'd pay about £30,000/year. It's not very controversial - I know Swiss conservatives who feel it's not a bad thing as a gentle nudge to actually do something with your money instead of just lazily leaving it in the bank. I never heard of anyone bothering to try to avoid it.
I can understand the need to nudge people to do something with spare cash. But my home consumes cash. It doesn't generate it. So it seems to me that having a low CGT-type tax on property when you sell it (thus avoiding valuation issues) is a better way to go.
I do agree though that there need to be higher council tax bands and I'd tax very heavily indeed those who buy property in the U.K. from abroad and leave it empty.
The issue with that low CGT-type tax is that when you look at current stamp duty rates there is little to be gained by even applying stand rate CGT rates in most cases.
Stupid example - you buy a house at £300,000 and after 5 years sell it at £500,000. The CGT on that is £56,000 but just selling that house (and buying another) generates 2x£25,000 in stamp duty.
We literally end up implementing a tax on wealth because there is nothing left that isn't taxed to the hilt...
That’s the key point. You have a wealth tax when you’ve taxed everything else as much as you can. After a home tax you’re just left with a family silver tax.
When we have a vast army of unpaid slave robots to do all the work and revolutionise productivity, perhaps we will finally be able to get rid of Pitt the Younger’s temporary tax on income.
All the robots will belong to tesla, so nobody except musk will have an income to worry about being taxed on
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff , which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act.The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
6. The apparent abuse by the police of their powers to investigate, threaten or arrest those who raise their concerns, even when the police themselves admit that no crime has been committed. Free expression matters and bullying by state bodies of those who disagree is quite quite wrong. The failure to deal with this - despite legal cases pointing out its unacceptability - is worrying. It is all the more so when much of the bullying seems to be my men against women, thus - ironically - reinforcing some of the underlying concerns. The failure to call out the bullying and abuse of those who speak up is wrong.
7. Misleading statements about what the current law actually says. This does not help any sort of sensible debate and it makes people query the good faith of what is going on.
In many ways some of these issues are similar to the criticisms made of the current Tory government. There is an arrogance, a refusal to be held accountable, a wish to listen only those who agree with you and a worrying dismissal of contrary views which is deeply unhealthy in any polity.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
But it's not an inheritance tax, it's an annual tax that replaces (depending on the level it is applied at) stamp duty, possibly council tax (as it would be easier to value and less politically dynamite than a council tax revaluation) and the Social Care levy.
What it isn't is an inheritance tax - it only becomes one for people (such as the former MP Nick mentioned below) who are asset rich and cash poor.
And while payment on sale/death should be an option for the cash poor, a modest interest rate could be applied to unpaid liabilities to discourage it going that way for the majority.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
Abolish Council Tax and roll that into it and it could be a popular policy.
IHT is wrongly viewed as a tax on top of other taxes but other taxes aren't necessarily more popular.
Tell people they never again have to pay Council Tax, and suddenly an attachment order onto houses might seem quite popular as an alternative to needing to pay Council Tax etc.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
We had the same with our former local MP who married a welsh Labour MP. The stories were continual even though she was around every weekend and her children were still attending the local secondary school
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
It does not say much for SKS or the Labour Party that a female MP can be allowed to be bullied in this way with no one in authority within the Party doing anything to stop it.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
I believe her partner has recently got a job with Wrexham FC; I don't think it's known how permanent that job is.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
But it's not an inheritance tax, it's an annual tax that replaces (depending on the level it is applied at) stamp duty, possibly council tax (as it would be easier to value and less politically dynamite than a council tax revaluation) and the Social Care levy.
What it isn't is an inheritance tax - it only becomes one for people (such as the former MP Nick mentioned below) who are asset rich and cash poor.
i.e. old people, which is who most people inherit stuff from.
But you miss the fact it saves the OAP £2k in council tax today, it's paid from the estate later.
Or would you prefer that we prosecute the old people and after the council wins the case the court sells the house to the highest bidder and force the OAPs to move elsewhere.
Fair point, but business taxes are very low indeed. So if you are a business owner all would be taken into account. Switzerland is complicated and the cost of living is very high, so perhaps I should have applied a different example. How do they apply their wealth tax to your knowledge?
It varies by canton but if you want to live in a town (and as a business it's quite likely) you pay something like 0.05%-0.3% per year starting at quite a low level (about £50,000 in Zurich, though you'd only pay £25/year on wealth of £100,000). It does include all property. So if your assets were £10 million, you'd pay about £30,000/year. It's not very controversial - I know Swiss conservatives who feel it's not a bad thing as a gentle nudge to actually do something with your money instead of just lazily leaving it in the bank. I never heard of anyone bothering to try to avoid it.
I can understand the need to nudge people to do something with spare cash. But my home consumes cash. It doesn't generate it. So it seems to me that having a low CGT-type tax on property when you sell it (thus avoiding valuation issues) is a better way to go.
I do agree though that there need to be higher council tax bands and I'd tax very heavily indeed those who buy property in the U.K. from abroad and leave it empty.
The issue with that low CGT-type tax is that when you look at current stamp duty rates there is little to be gained by even applying stand rate CGT rates in most cases.
Stupid example - you buy a house at £300,000 and after 5 years sell it at £500,000. The CGT on that is £56,000 but just selling that house (and buying another) generates 2x£25,000 in stamp duty.
We literally end up implementing a tax on wealth because there is nothing left that isn't taxed to the hilt...
That’s the key point. You have a wealth tax when you’ve taxed everything else as much as you can. After a home tax you’re just left with a family silver tax.
When we have a vast army of unpaid slave robots to do all the work and revolutionise productivity, perhaps we will finally be able to get rid of Pitt the Younger’s temporary tax on income.
All the robots will belong to tesla, so nobody except musk will have an income to worry about being taxed on
They should buy one share for every person in the country using QE funny money just in case and that way they won’t have to worry about complex tax loopholes in 2040.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
We had the same with our former local MP who married a welsh Labour MP. The stories were continual even though she was around every weekend and her children were still attending the local secondary school
Priti Patel hasn't, as I mentioned last week, been seen around her constituency for some time. Her husband is still, I think a Councillor in SE London and their son goes to school there.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
We had the same with our former local MP who married a welsh Labour MP. The stories were continual even though she was around every weekend and her children were still attending the local secondary school
Priti Patel hasn't, as I mentioned last week, been seen around her constituency for some time. Her husband is still, I think a Councillor in SE London and their son goes to school there.
What is the insinuation here or should we not go further for the sake of lawyers letters to pb?
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
So if she leaves Labour, where does she go? Tory..... unlikely, I would have thought. LD..... possible I suppose. Ind? Lonely.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
If she quits Labour to sit as an independent it'll be a non-story.
If she joins the Conservatives, on the other hand...
The Lib Dems really do not want another row about trans support.
If it was a black market report it would be fine as people could see easily how brazen it is. But I fear it’s a heavily edited one that BJ will hold up as “see nothing wrong here guv”.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
Abolish Council Tax and roll that into it and it could be a popular policy.
IHT is wrongly viewed as a tax on top of other taxes but other taxes aren't necessarily more popular.
Tell people they never again have to pay Council Tax, and suddenly an attachment order onto houses might seem quite popular as an alternative to needing to pay Council Tax etc.
I'd also love it if income tax could be deferred and rolled up and taken out of my estate, but governments need tax a bit sooner than that, and if you permit annual tax to be rolled up you are eventually taking a national bet on the housing market not crashing and life expectancy not increasing, and such a scheme would be seen as the boomers screwing the young, again
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
We had the same with our former local MP who married a welsh Labour MP. The stories were continual even though she was around every weekend and her children were still attending the local secondary school
Priti Patel hasn't, as I mentioned last week, been seen around her constituency for some time. Her husband is still, I think a Councillor in SE London and their son goes to school there.
What is the insinuation here or should we not go further for the sake of lawyers letters to pb?
Statement of fact. Long been known about her husband & son, and it's not far from Witham to SE London, although the Dartford Crossing can be 'difficult'!
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
It does not say much for SKS or the Labour Party that a female MP can be allowed to be bullied in this way with no one in authority within the Party doing anything to stop it.
I'm not sure the party can do much to stop it - she seems to want the Labour Party to support unlimited libel court cases but that's literally a matter of finding the people responsible and a libel lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis (and they do exist).
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
On your 2. I was told by two different people that when Private School charitable status was looked at several times under Labour governments, the following happened
- Ministers proposed the removal of charitable status - Civil servants/lawyers pointed out that it would have to be a formal, equitable criteria. - Ministers said 'What about the amount of charitable work?". Also we could got charity reform at the same time, as cover.... - The civil servants dutifully went off and came back with a problem. All Private Schools do *some* charitable work. Some do quite a lot. To catch most of them, would also catch a large number of charities. Many of which in the charitable-lobbying-to-get-funds-for-lobbying circle. - Several do no actual charitable work, apart from their lobbying. - Said charities get wind of the proposals and raise hell - Suggestion dropped.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
If she quits Labour to sit as an independent it'll be a non-story.
If she joins the Conservatives, on the other hand...
The Lib Dems really do not want another row about trans support.
If Duffield quits the spotlight will be on why Duffield quit, not who she joined. The public might see a side of labour they do not like as details of the harassment she has been subject to emerge.
Plus, who quits a party that's destined for government?
If it was a black market report it would be fine as people could see easily how brazen it is. But I fear it’s a heavily edited one that BJ will hold up as “see nothing wrong here guv”.
Editing far preferable to redaction as far as Boris is concerned, as the police have made it clear there's no objection to the information being released once their investigations are complete, and people would start asking for the full report after that. Now he can say the full report has been published. Job done.
When I spoke with those workers, none of them were under any illusion that they were supporting a saint. Boris already had a track record as a maverick,
It is genuinely astonishing that we are the position where breaking the law, the ministerial code (repeatedly) and lying can now just be explained away so easily. We are going to come to bitterly regret allowing such actions when one day a much worse person than Johnson gets in. There used to be an idea of honour and public service in the two main parties, this now seems to be lost in the spirit of 'electability'.
For the good of us all, I really think the Tories would be served by being in opposition for a while.
Agreed. It's only a slightly diluted version of the argument of those who back Trump in his worst excesses.
BBC confirm last minute changes have been made to Sue Grays report but it is expected to be sent to no 10 this morning
If it's honestly about confidentiality of more junior members of staff then they can simply be redacted to "Individual A", "Individual B". The names of Sir Humphrey Jr's bag carriers are not of importance.
I don't want it to be "ghost" redacted.
I want the full report with masses of black highlighter.
Black highlighter will also do, the important bit is the details for more senior people, including Boris himself.
If Black Highlighter makes you happy, here's one from a few years ago.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
The claim that she's moved to Wrexham seems to be based solely on the fact that her partner is working temporarily for a company based there.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
It does not say much for SKS or the Labour Party that a female MP can be allowed to be bullied in this way with no one in authority within the Party doing anything to stop it.
It really doesn't. It's quite concerning on many levels.
A basic lack of empathy.
A failure to stand up to bullies (because of fear or political calculation?)
Smacks of small-tent politics. This might sound like an absurd accusation from a Green Party voter, but successful political leaders have to manage to reconcile antagonistic groups, and if he can't even try to do so within his own party, then what chance does he have with the age divide within the country, etc.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
I believe her partner has recently got a job with Wrexham FC; I don't think it's known how permanent that job is.
He made a documentary about Wrexham FC and is supposed to be pursing a media career in Wrexham...
Given that WFH is now the thing, quite a few people are considering working hundreds of miles from their nominal location. I know of a several who are considering "working in London" from the Lake District, Wales, Cornwall.....
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
So if she leaves Labour, where does she go? Tory..... unlikely, I would have thought. LD..... possible I suppose. Ind? Lonely.
Indy, I would think, then she could get the payoff when defeated. To the Tories would be more likely to retain seat, but far from certain and wouldn't match her voting on other issues.
If it's redacted, the opposition and any Tory MP interested in holding the PM to account should not dignify it with a response. Just let Johnson talk to the hand.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Honestly it's hard to know with these things. Apparently she denies moving to North Wales. Even writing that sentence it all seems ridiculous. In any case - I think deselection is pretty difficult to achieve, which leaves Labour in a difficult position.
I believe her partner has recently got a job with Wrexham FC; I don't think it's known how permanent that job is.
The Guardian have some details. The job is/was to make a documentary. A fairly explicitly time-limited sort of job.
Johnson First Quarter Exit was 8.2 with BF when I checked five mins ago, now 7.8, may fall further?
Screaming value
Already b*lls deep at about 5, and anxious not to let my addiction spiral out of control
But only works if Boris walks away before a leadership election (in which case it's worth having as your next PM bets are probably duds) or the leadership election results in a single candidate and no membership vote (probably unlikely but way more in line with the UK constitution).
If there is a VONC tomorrow and the leadership election goes to a membership vote the end result is going to be early April.
When I spoke with those workers, none of them were under any illusion that they were supporting a saint. Boris already had a track record as a maverick,
It is genuinely astonishing that we are the position where breaking the law, the ministerial code (repeatedly) and lying can now just be explained away so easily. We are going to come to bitterly regret allowing such actions when one day a much worse person than Johnson gets in. There used to be an idea of honour and public service in the two main parties, this now seems to be lost in the spirit of 'electability'.
For the good of us all, I really think the Tories would be served by being in opposition for a while.
Agreed. It's only a slightly diluted version of the argument of those who back Trump in his worst excesses.
Johnson First Quarter Exit was 8.2 with BF when I checked five mins ago, now 7.8, may fall further?
Screaming value
Already b*lls deep at about 5, and anxious not to let my addiction spiral out of control
But only works if Boris walks away before a leadership election (in which case it's worth having as your next PM bets are probably duds) or the leadership election results in a single candidate and no membership vote (probably unlikely but way more in line with the UK constitution).
If there is a VONC tomorrow and the leadership election goes to a membership vote the end result is going to be early April.
Yeah, not investing any further. I imagine he and NutNut would want to squeeze the last few weeks of no 10/chequers/govt jets rather than do the decent thing (ha!) and go quietly
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
Abolish Council Tax and roll that into it and it could be a popular policy.
IHT is wrongly viewed as a tax on top of other taxes but other taxes aren't necessarily more popular.
Tell people they never again have to pay Council Tax, and suddenly an attachment order onto houses might seem quite popular as an alternative to needing to pay Council Tax etc.
I'd also love it if income tax could be deferred and rolled up and taken out of my estate, but governments need tax a bit sooner than that, and if you permit annual tax to be rolled up you are eventually taking a national bet on the housing market not crashing and life expectancy not increasing, and such a scheme would be seen as the boomers screwing the young, again
Considering the government can borrow at close to 0% such a bet seems entirely reasonable. The taxes would still be coming but accrued for over the long term.
And the young wouldn't be liable for Council Tax anymore either which is a major bill for them too.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
When I spoke with those workers, none of them were under any illusion that they were supporting a saint. Boris already had a track record as a maverick,
It is genuinely astonishing that we are the position where breaking the law, the ministerial code (repeatedly) and lying can now just be explained away so easily. We are going to come to bitterly regret allowing such actions when one day a much worse person than Johnson gets in. There used to be an idea of honour and public service in the two main parties, this now seems to be lost in the spirit of 'electability'.
For the good of us all, I really think the Tories would be served by being in opposition for a while.
The sad thing is that the public have tended to have an unrealistically bad impression of politicians - viewing them as all in it for themselves and on the take whereas in reality most are fairly selfless people motivated by a large dollop of public spiritedness. Under Boris Johnson the government's dishonesty, greed and corruption has now caught up with that perception, or even surpassed it.
Cynicism about politics and politicians serves the interests of Johnson, Trump etc. If people think they are all at it, you might as well accept the corruption. It is vital those that are not corrupt despots should make the case for a different and better politics or we're in a death spiral.
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
Here we go again
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
Abolish Council Tax and roll that into it and it could be a popular policy.
IHT is wrongly viewed as a tax on top of other taxes but other taxes aren't necessarily more popular.
Tell people they never again have to pay Council Tax, and suddenly an attachment order onto houses might seem quite popular as an alternative to needing to pay Council Tax etc.
I'd also love it if income tax could be deferred and rolled up and taken out of my estate, but governments need tax a bit sooner than that, and if you permit annual tax to be rolled up you are eventually taking a national bet on the housing market not crashing and life expectancy not increasing, and such a scheme would be seen as the boomers screwing the young, again
Considering the government can borrow at close to 0% such a bet seems entirely reasonable. The taxes would still be coming but accrued for over the long term.
And the young wouldn't be liable for Council Tax anymore either which is a major bill for them too.
Feels like the possibility of a genuinely low tax government (pace Boris) has receded into the mists - all sides see more tax as inevitable and helpful. Can that last as a political consensus?
I don't know whether anyone else has commented on this, but it is yet another reason Johnson is not fit for office. Anyone with Big Clown's reputation for disorderliness should never be allowed in possession of a security sensitive document.
Will we soon see a windblown yet triumphant Boris waving a piece of paper on the pavement outside Number Ten, proclaiming his immediate and utter vindication?
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky ThisDown pointing backhand indexis significant.
I’m told todays “update” is NOT a full and final report meaning - importantly - chances of something else emerging from Team Gray after police finish investigating have risen sharply this AM.
This is an important advance on the position on Friday night…
When I spoke with those workers, none of them were under any illusion that they were supporting a saint. Boris already had a track record as a maverick,
It is genuinely astonishing that we are the position where breaking the law, the ministerial code (repeatedly) and lying can now just be explained away so easily. We are going to come to bitterly regret allowing such actions when one day a much worse person than Johnson gets in. There used to be an idea of honour and public service in the two main parties, this now seems to be lost in the spirit of 'electability'.
For the good of us all, I really think the Tories would be served by being in opposition for a while.
Agreed. It's only a slightly diluted version of the argument of those who back Trump in his worst excesses.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
If she quits Labour to sit as an independent it'll be a non-story.
If she joins the Conservatives, on the other hand...
The Lib Dems really do not want another row about trans support.
Thought she lives in N Wales and represents Canterbury too
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
It seems though that what is covid theatre and what is covid medicine is still the subject of furious debate.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
Even worse is the fact that they are prepared to put others at risk so that they don't participate in a very very small risk themselves. Not quite in the spirit of what the NHS is supposed to be about really.
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff , which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act.The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
6. The apparent abuse by the police of their powers to investigate, threaten or arrest those who raise their concerns, even when the police themselves admit that no crime has been committed. Free expression matters and bullying by state bodies of those who disagree is quite quite wrong. The failure to deal with this - despite legal cases pointing out its unacceptability - is worrying. It is all the more so when much of the bullying seems to be my men against women, thus - ironically - reinforcing some of the underlying concerns. The failure to call out the bullying and abuse of those who speak up is wrong.
7. Misleading statements about what the current law actually says. This does not help any sort of sensible debate and it makes people query the good faith of what is going on.
In many ways some of these issues are similar to the criticisms made of the current Tory government. There is an arrogance, a refusal to be held accountable, a wish to listen only those who agree with you and a worrying dismissal of contrary views which is deeply unhealthy in any polity.
A very interesting discvussion. But do you not mean the Scottish Government rather than SNP specifically, for instance in the first sentence of para 1? Not the same thing legally, financially and even politically given the disagreements within the SNP itself.
Technical note for Newsdesks: Currently the report is due to be a webpage on gov.uk but some work is underway to see if it can be turned into PDF too. Ends.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky ThisDown pointing backhand indexis significant.
I’m told todays “update” is NOT a full and final report meaning - importantly - chances of something else emerging from Team Gray after police finish investigating have risen sharply this AM.
This is an important advance on the position on Friday night…
I think I would brief to that effect in Boris's position, on the basis that it would tend to suppress any discontent today and would commit me to nothing in the future.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
If you are vaccinated you can still a) get Covid; and b) transmit Covid.
Perhaps a lower viral load perhaps not if you are asymptomatic.
Right now there is no real issue imo about them being vaccinated.
@Foxy , is the change to testing positive but still coming in an England thing?
My gf (Doctor) spams LFTs and is mildly depressed every time they come back negative. Off for another 13 hour shift this morning!
She's pretty settled on becoming a part time Highland GP... could be very lucrative if I can get paid my Edinburgh salary while living in Kinlochbervie.
Yes, it is England only as far as I know. Quite likely that some businesses such as hospitals, won't loosen guidance.
If your GF is getting down about work then she isn't alone. Indeed all the best doctors that I know have had their doubts about it as a career. Indeed I would go so far as to say that anyone without that questioning of their choices probably lacks the insight to be a good doctor. Work can be a drag, indeed that is why we have to be paid to do it.
Medicine though has a very wide range of options for a satisfying career to suit nearly all tastes. I have a friend who runs an ICU in a trauma centre. He is quite open about not liking conscious patients! Others that find in that human contact real job satisfaction.
Personally, I would find part time working difficult. I like to be at it hammer and tongs or not at all. The worst jobs that I had in my training were the quiet ones.
I think too that there is a malaise in General Practice, that I cannot quite put my finger on. GPS seem to burn out quite young, with fewer and fewer reaching normal retirement age. When I qualified 30 years ago, it was the opposite problem, with GPs staying on long past their sell by date. Maybe it is different in Scotland. Essential though to find a practice with partners on the same wavelength as good or bad colleagues are the makings and breaking of a contented career.
Is part of this still about early retirement encouraged by a tax rate hike when the max pension pot size is reached around 50?
(Not making a point; I can see it could be an issue).
Yes, that is part of it, but even part time GPs who therefore have much smaller pensions seem to burn out quite young and quit.
The solution to the NHS staffing issue is really about retention, which is not all about pay. It needs to be about restoring some degree of autonomy and control to staff, otherwise they exercise that autonomy and control by leaving.
When I talked to a doctor recently, his description of his working conditions was straight out of Taylorism. And not in a good way.
So the NHS is mis-managing to practices that were obsolete. 100 years ago.
I've 'observed' GP-land all my working life, as a pharmacist, in one capacity or another. It's not easy being a GP; Dr's Finlay and Cameron are long ago dead and gone, and, especially with a more mobile population GP's, even in partnerships no longer see patients from the cradle to the grave, or as an middle-aged pharmacist of my acquaintance once remarked; 'I'm now weighing the babies of the babies I weighed when I first came here'. That was of course in the days when baby weighing scales were a feature of every 'chemists'! Secondly we've sorted out the common diseases. For example, mass vaccination has cut childhood diseases enormously, so that GP's now trend to see less treatable conditions, and, very importantly have less time in which to deal with them. Thirdly, Dr's F&C were unlikely to be visited by people commenting on their practice. Thus, some years ago I had to analyse the prescribing of one practice because of their high use of sleeping tablets. Turned out they were unduly influenced by a care home where the staff liked quiet night shifts, but that's another story. The point is that there was this chap looking at their prescribing and asking questions. Then there's the social services aspect. Given that social services are underfunded, the GP has become the key to many of them, and that's a time consuming and frequently unrewarding activity.
I could go on, but won't.
I agree that there does need to be external scrutiny on things like prescribing for just the reasons that you say. Modern reforms have tended to reduce clinical variation, but do tend to miss that variation can be an asset as well as a liability. Innovative practitioners wind up constantly frustrated.
I've posted this before but BBC iplayer has the 1958 documentary, On Call to a Nation. Casting real doctors instead of actors, this film uses scripted scenarios and interviews to see the National Health Service through their eyes. The documentary also shows that there is still division among doctors as to whether the NHS was a sound idea in the first place. (1958) https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p013ylyp/on-call-to-a-nation
It is fascinating to hear doctors from the three different branches of the NHS (GPs, hospitals, public health) largely (not universally) agree the NHS is a good thing but it gives too much power to the other two branches.
What an opportunity missed by the Lib Dems. Never again must party's immediately say, after an assassination, "we are not standing".
Disagree. Principle should always stand ahead of short term political advantage. That is the fundamental problem with Johnson and those that apologise for him. They overlook his unsuitability in a Faustian pact for his perceived electoral advantage. If the LDs had stood, they would appear to be no better than Johnson or any other political chancer.
And on Rosie Duffield. She has certainly upset some people with her stance on trans issues, and they should lay off her.
But my understanding is that she has moved to North Wales, yet still hopes to stand for Canterbury at the next GE. Even if my MP were perfect in my eyes, I would be seeking to deselect him/her if they decided that they wished to live over 200 miles away from the constituency.
Duffield was hinting at quitting the Labour Party yesterday. The question is surely whether her leaving, the publicity it would generate and the debate that could arise would be a problem for Starmer or not.
If she quits Labour to sit as an independent it'll be a non-story.
If she joins the Conservatives, on the other hand...
The Lib Dems really do not want another row about trans support.
Thought she lives in N Wales and represents Canterbury too
Were she to have enough money to launch libel cases I suspect your comment would be subject to it.
Technical note for Newsdesks: Currently the report is due to be a webpage on gov.uk but some work is underway to see if it can be turned into PDF too. Ends.
The release of the report will be delayed for a week while someone finds out how to export a PDF from Word.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Vaccines do reduce transmission, but the benefit is minimal compared to the protective effect for the individual.
Smokers pay tax on their fags Fatties buy more food & pay VAT on cakes and stuff Boozers pay tax and duty on their booze.
As choosing not to be up to date with Covid vaccinations is a poor lifestyle choice, it should be dealt with by a reduced personal allowance. It has the benefit that it can go below zero, and we already adjust for stuff like company cars, medical care provided by employers.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
Even worse is the fact that they are prepared to put others at risk so that they don't participate in a very very small risk themselves. Not quite in the spirit of what the NHS is supposed to be about really.
How is being vaccinated putting someone else at more risk than not being? Anybody can get covid and pass it on.
Isn't the argument now that vaccination makes for much less severe symptoms? Which is surely why it should be targeted at patients who might put pressure on the NHS?
It ⬛️⬛️ lovely day⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ garden ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ leathered ⬛️⬛️ queue for the loo ⬛️⬛️ lightweight ⬛️⬛️⬛️ disco ball ⬛️⬛️ off their tits ⬛️⬛️⬛️ fight ⬛️⬛️ spilled ⬛️⬛️ crisp packet split wide open and placed on the table ⬛️⬛️ conga line ⬛️⬛️ like Oliver Reed ⬛️⬛️⬛️.
So Cabinet Office says it's an "update" which means it will not draw a line. It’s Gray part one. Then we get the Met. Then one way or another we will get Gray 2.0
So it may be that the Conservatives have to accept that their leadership dilemma is actually something deeper: a crossroads beyond Brexit. They wanted more free trade, but they got huge tailbacks at Dover; they wanted Parliament to pass its own laws, but they don’t really believe they can rip up Britain’s rulebooks; they thought they wanted to build railways and bridges all over the North of England, but they don’t want to pay for it.
Boris Johnson is just the symbol of those paradoxes, dilemmas and troubled promises. The reason Conservative MPs hesitate, and may in the end grant Johnson a stay of political execution, is that they don’t really know the answers to deeper questions than lawbreaking in lockdown.
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky ThisDown pointing backhand indexis significant.
I’m told todays “update” is NOT a full and final report meaning - importantly - chances of something else emerging from Team Gray after police finish investigating have risen sharply this AM.
This is an important advance on the position on Friday night…
WTF is this about an update? You can only usefully give an update to someone, of something they basically already have. That's what the word means. I am of the Gary Neville school of thought that Johnson went full retard last week because he had seen a draft and knew it finished him, but that ain't the official line.
Comments
Stupid example - you buy a house at £300,000 and after 5 years sell it at £500,000. The CGT on that is £56,000 but just selling that house (and buying another) generates 2x£25,000 in stamp duty.
We literally end up implementing a tax on wealth because there is nothing left that isn't taxed to the hilt...
If Salmond embraces the trans lobby, he'll lead Alba to a majority in Holyrood and Scotland to independence?
Bizarre.
Perhaps when it came to it I would spoil my ballot, rather than voting Tory, but if I thought there was any risk of the Tory losing I think I'd have to vote against the (further) far-right.
Total UK residential property is worth £9.2tn based on https://propertyindustryeye.com/total-value-of-homes-in-britain-has-risen-by-20-since-2016/
So an annual wealth tax of 0.15% is enough to cover stamp duty.
Double that and you also cover the NI increase and apply it to a more appropriate section of the population.
And yes we know some people can't offered to pay it up front, so we allow the tax to be attached to a property and collected on it's eventual sale
The eventual sale takes place on death, so what you have reinvented is inheritance tax, and everyone knows what a vote winner iht is. It'll go the way the NI hike looks like going, passed into law but then government lacks the balls to implement.
What it isn't is an inheritance tax - it only becomes one for people (such as the former MP Nick mentioned below) who are asset rich and cash poor.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
It's a pretty thin accusation, but obviously people who have already decided against her, and have been running a persistent campaign to push her out of the party, will look for anything they can construe to make her look bad.
What worries me is that, as with Luciana Berger, we yet again have a female Labour MP being bullied by her local constituency party and the Leader of the party hasn't even spoken to her to offer pastoral support, yet alone publicly backed her by visiting the constituency for a walkabout to highlight a couple of local and national issues/policies.
He doesn't have to agree with her about trans self-id to do that.
6. The apparent abuse by the police of their powers to investigate, threaten or arrest those who raise their concerns, even when the police themselves admit that no crime has been committed. Free expression matters and bullying by state bodies of those who disagree is quite quite wrong. The failure to deal with this - despite legal cases pointing out its unacceptability - is worrying. It is all the more so when much of the bullying seems to be my men against women, thus - ironically - reinforcing some of the underlying concerns. The failure to call out the bullying and abuse of those who speak up is wrong.
7. Misleading statements about what the current law actually says. This does not help any sort of sensible debate and it makes people query the good faith of what is going on.
In many ways some of these issues are similar to the criticisms made of the current Tory government. There is an arrogance, a refusal to be held accountable, a wish to listen only those who agree with you and a worrying dismissal of contrary views which is deeply unhealthy in any polity.
IHT is wrongly viewed as a tax on top of other taxes but other taxes aren't necessarily more popular.
Tell people they never again have to pay Council Tax, and suddenly an attachment order onto houses might seem quite popular as an alternative to needing to pay Council Tax etc.
Or would you prefer that we prosecute the old people and after the council wins the case the court sells the house to the highest bidder and force the OAPs to move elsewhere.
If she joins the Conservatives, on the other hand...
The Lib Dems really do not want another row about trans support.
- Ministers proposed the removal of charitable status
- Civil servants/lawyers pointed out that it would have to be a formal, equitable criteria.
- Ministers said 'What about the amount of charitable work?". Also we could got charity reform at the same time, as cover....
- The civil servants dutifully went off and came back with a problem. All Private Schools do *some* charitable work. Some do quite a lot. To catch most of them, would also catch a large number of charities. Many of which in the charitable-lobbying-to-get-funds-for-lobbying circle.
- Several do no actual charitable work, apart from their lobbying.
- Said charities get wind of the proposals and raise hell
- Suggestion dropped.
Plus, who quits a party that's destined for government?
Already b*lls deep at about 5, and anxious not to let my addiction spiral out of control
It's only a slightly diluted version of the argument of those who back Trump in his worst excesses.
A basic lack of empathy.
A failure to stand up to bullies (because of fear or political calculation?)
Smacks of small-tent politics. This might sound like an absurd accusation from a Green Party voter, but successful political leaders have to manage to reconcile antagonistic groups, and if he can't even try to do so within his own party, then what chance does he have with the age divide within the country, etc.
Given that WFH is now the thing, quite a few people are considering working hundreds of miles from their nominal location. I know of a several who are considering "working in London" from the Lake District, Wales, Cornwall.....
If there is a VONC tomorrow and the leadership election goes to a membership vote the end result is going to be early April.
The Sue Gray report delivery party.
And the young wouldn't be liable for Council Tax anymore either which is a major bill for them too.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
8 weeks to end March - enough time for bet to come in? Unless Johnson resigns and doesn't stay on until successor is in place.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/boris-johnson-is-a-security-risk-former-home-secretary-david-blunkett-says-as-partygate-scandal-rumbles-on/ar-AATiN5o?ocid=entnewsntp
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
ThisDown pointing backhand indexis significant.
I’m told todays “update” is NOT a full and final report meaning - importantly - chances of something else emerging from Team Gray after police finish investigating have risen sharply this AM.
This is an important advance on the position on Friday night…
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 42% (+1)
CON: 32% (-)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
GRN: 6% (+1)
via
@DeltapollUK
, 25 - 27 Jan
Chgs. w/ 14 Jan
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1488116352837734404
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1488116553291816964?s=21
Technical note for Newsdesks: Currently the report is due to be a webpage on gov.uk but some work is underway to see if it can be turned into PDF too. Ends.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Perhaps a lower viral load perhaps not if you are asymptomatic.
Right now there is no real issue imo about them being vaccinated.
Casting real doctors instead of actors, this film uses scripted scenarios and interviews to see the National Health Service through their eyes. The documentary also shows that there is still division among doctors as to whether the NHS was a sound idea in the first place. (1958)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p013ylyp/on-call-to-a-nation
It is fascinating to hear doctors from the three different branches of the NHS (GPs, hospitals, public health) largely (not universally) agree the NHS is a good thing but it gives too much power to the other two branches.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Smokers pay tax on their fags
Fatties buy more food & pay VAT on cakes and stuff
Boozers pay tax and duty on their booze.
As choosing not to be up to date with Covid vaccinations is a poor lifestyle choice, it should be dealt with by a reduced personal allowance. It has the benefit that it can go below zero, and we already adjust for stuff like company cars, medical care provided by employers.
Isn't the argument now that vaccination makes for much less severe symptoms? Which is surely why it should be targeted at patients who might put pressure on the NHS?
It ⬛️⬛️ lovely day⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ garden ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ leathered ⬛️⬛️ queue for the loo ⬛️⬛️ lightweight ⬛️⬛️⬛️ disco ball ⬛️⬛️ off their tits ⬛️⬛️⬛️ fight ⬛️⬛️ spilled ⬛️⬛️ crisp packet split wide open and placed on the table ⬛️⬛️ conga line ⬛️⬛️ like Oliver Reed ⬛️⬛️⬛️.
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1488118514099666948?s=20&t=nQZNfBgj7Fd6QKC6qfr2UA
I'll quote the ending.
So it may be that the Conservatives have to accept that their leadership dilemma is actually something deeper: a crossroads beyond Brexit. They wanted more free trade, but they got huge tailbacks at Dover; they wanted Parliament to pass its own laws, but they don’t really believe they can rip up Britain’s rulebooks; they thought they wanted to build railways and bridges all over the North of England, but they don’t want to pay for it.
Boris Johnson is just the symbol of those paradoxes, dilemmas and troubled promises. The reason Conservative MPs hesitate, and may in the end grant Johnson a stay of political execution, is that they don’t really know the answers to deeper questions than lawbreaking in lockdown.
WTF is this about an update? You can only usefully give an update to someone, of something they basically already have. That's what the word means. I am of the Gary Neville school of thought that Johnson went full retard last week because he had seen a draft and knew it finished him, but that ain't the official line.